Govind vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 322 of 2026

¶3

Govind

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: M.P. Srivastava, Kushwahah	Manoj Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 190 of 2024 (Ranjeet Kumar vs. Poonam Devi and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 380 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Cholapur, District Varanasi.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that prior to lodging the First Information Report, the complainant, Ranjeet Kumar, had filed an application before the Station House Officer, Police Station Cholapur, District Varanasi, on 10.11.2022, wherein it was stated that his elder son, Vivek Kumar, had gone to Patti after spending the night at Police Station Cholapur and had committed suicide in the house of Arvind Kumar for unknown reasons. On the same day, on the basis of the information received, the Investigating Officer took custody of the dead body and sent it for postmortem after preparing the panchnama. The informant, along with his son, expressed the opinion that the deceased had committed suicide in the house of Arvind Kumar. The postmortem report also opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging.

¶10

Subsequently, after an afterthought, the informant moved an application dated 19.12.2022 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate

¶11

CRLR No. 322 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

after a lapse of more than one month, alleging that the Station House Officer, Police Station Cholapur, District Varanasi, had procured information from the informant in collusion with the village Pradhan. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate passed an order for lodging the First Information Report.

¶14

Consequently, an F.I.R. dated 01.09.2023 under Section 302 I.P.C., bearing Case Crime No. 380 of 2023, was registered against Poonam, wife of Arvind Kumar/accused no. 1, and the revisionist Govind, son of unknown (accused no. 2). The allegations were that accused no. 1 had called the deceased on 08.11.2022 during the day and, during the night, committed his murder along with accused no. 2. It was further alleged that the village Pradhan had reported the incident as a case of suicide, and the complainant could not initially understand the cause of death in the house of Arvind Kumar.

¶15

After investigation, a final report was submitted on 25.12.2023. Thereafter, a protest petition dated 27.06.2024 was filed by the informant seeking further investigation of the case. It is submitted that the said protest petition ought to have been treated as a complaint case, and thereafter the court was required to proceed in accordance with the settled principles of law.

¶16

It is further submitted that neither the complainant nor the accused can seek relief as a matter of right for further investigation or rejection of the final report. However, the court may take cognizance on the police report, whether negative or positive. The court cannot direct a private person to conduct or demand further investigation.

¶17

Learned counsel for the revisionist further argues that further investigation is permissible only under the proviso to Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., which contemplates further investigation after submission of a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., upon application by the Investigating Officer, who may thereafter submit a supplementary report. The provision makes it clear that further investigation can be conducted only by the police authorities with the permission of the court.

¶18

It is contended that in the present case, no prima facie facts or chain of evidence have been found. The complainant did not raise any objection or make any complaint during the course of investigation, nor were any

¶19

CRLR No. 322 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

statements recorded in support of his allegations. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is wholly without jurisdiction. The F.I.R. itself is unsustainable, as the complainant, in his own complaint, has acknowledged the absence of evidence and the absence of accused no. 2/Govind, based on statements collected during investigation. Such grounds do not fall within the scope of justice under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

¶22

It is next argued that the death occurred on account of hanging (suicide) in the house of another person, and no offence is made out merely on that basis. It is further submitted that the deceased was not related to the house owner but was only a friend. The statements of witnesses namely Radheshyam, Shakal Narayan, Lal Chandra, and Chandra Bhan do not disclose how the deceased entered the house. Merely because a person is found dead in another's house does not make the house owner responsible. The deceased died on account of depression, as reflected from the investigation and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and no offence is disclosed.

¶23

It is further submitted that the protest petition ought to have been treated as a complaint against the Investigating Officer, as the witnesses cited were residents of the same locality. The allegations made in the protest petition required scrutiny by the trial court after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., as mandated for a complaint case.

¶24

The foundation of the case is based on the initial application dated 10.11.2022 submitted by the complainant and the steps taken by the police authorities, including the panchnama proceedings. The subsequent allegations were made only after a considerable lapse of time.

¶25

It is lastly submitted that the protest petition was neither registered as a complaint case nor were statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., which is the established procedure for the disposal of a protest petition in accordance with law.

¶26

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on Section 173(8) Code ff Criminal Procedure, 1973-Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further

¶27

CRLR No. 322 of 2026

¶28

4

¶29

report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).

¶30

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has contended that the impugned order is purely legal and that the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the view that the protest petition filed by the complainant is required to be treated as a complaint. The procedure prescribed under law mandates recording of statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., followed by passing of appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, the learned trial court directed further investigation, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. Further, the direction issued by the learned trial court for completion of the investigation within a period of two months is also not in consonance with the established principles of criminal jurisprudence. Investigation falls exclusively within the domain of the police authorities, and no specific time limit can be fixed by the court, though the investigating agency is expected to conclude the investigation within a reasonable time without causing undue delay.

¶32

In view of the above, the judgment and order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.

¶33

The learned trial court is directed to decide the protest petition afresh, in accordance with the settled principles of law and prescribed procedure, as expeditiously as possible.

¶34

With the aforesaid observations, the criminal revision stands finally disposed of.

¶35

January 22, 2026 M. Tarik

¶36

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Govind v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akash Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rohit @ Chotu and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Amar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Tiwari vs State of Up and Another

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. and 6 Others