Allowed¶23

Nitin Agarwal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2026CRLR/5309/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision 5309 of 2025, Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid J., decided January 9, 2026. Discharge application rejection under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (case crime no. 379 of 2004, Case No. 7393 of 2019, P.S. Nauchandi, Meerut/Moradabad) set aside as passed in routine manner; trial court directed to pass reasoned and speaking order; mediation and conciliation referred, involving Secretary Legal Services Authority Moradabad; irretrievable breakdown of marriage; divorce petition pending; revision allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.8.2025 rejecting the discharge application set aside; trial court directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the discharge application and to consider mediation/conciliation. ¶23

Nitin Agarwal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 27.08.2025 rejecting the revisionists' discharge application was passed with due care and consideration and ought to be upheld. +2 more

¶18

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 27.08.2025 was passed in a routine manner; in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, the discharge application required much more serious and careful consideration.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 27.8.2025 rejecting the discharge application is set aside and the criminal revision is allowed.

¶23

Key takeaways

Although this Court's revisional jurisdiction is very limited and confined to questions of law, the facts of the case are required to be seriously analyzed and considered by the learned trial court.ratio¶18
The learned trial court is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the discharge application filed by the revisionists, in the light of the observations made hereinabove, after considering the exceptional circumstances of the case and after perusing the entire material available on record.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Abdul Shahid, J.) allowed a criminal revision and set aside the order dated 27.8.2025 of the Upper Laghuvad Nyayadheesh/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, in Case No. 7393 of 2019 (arising out of case crime no. 379 of 2004, Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut), whereby the revisionists' discharge application had been rejected. Observing that the impugned order was passed in a routine manner although the exceptional circumstances of the case (very old matrimonial litigation, irretrievable breakdown of marriage, four of the ten accused having died) required much more serious and careful consideration, and that revisional jurisdiction is confined to questions of law, the Court directed the trial court to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the discharge application after perusing the entire material on record, and to consider mediation/conciliation, including through the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Moradabad, noting that opposite party no. 2 and her estranged husband have resided separately for more than 20 years.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5309 of 2025

¶3

Nitin Agarwal And 3 Others

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Krishna Dutt Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Sudha Garg
Court No.- 87

¶9

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, Ms. Sudha Garg who has appeared in person and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

The instant criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 27.8.2025 passed by the learned Upper Laghuvad Nyayadheesh/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, in Case No. 7393 of 2019 arising out of case crime no. 379 of 2004, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut, whereby the application for discharge filed by the revisionists has been rejected.

¶12

Brief genesis of the case is that revisionists nos. 1 & 2 are the cousin brother of husband of opposite party no. 2, revisionist no. 3 is maternal uncle of husband of opposite party no. 2 whereas revisionist no. 4 is married sisterin-law of opposite party no. 2.

¶13

The submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that due to discord between the opposite party no. 2/complainant and her husband, on 08.10.2004 opposite party no. 2/complainant took all her belongings and, after entering into a compromise, left along with her parental family. After a considerable period after the compromise, upon taking legal advice, the complainant got the above-mentioned case instituted. It is further submitted that revisionist no. 4 Smt. Neetu Agrawal was residing with her husband at Ravara, Districtd Bhuj, Gujarat, and the marriage of the opposite party no. 2/complainant was also solemnized in Gujarat. Revisionist No. 4 is residing at Jaipur, Rajasthan, and she never had any transaction or dealing with the complainant. Revisionist No. 3 resides separately with his family and there has never been any dispute or altercation between him and the opposite party no. 2/complainant or the family of her husband. On 08.10.2004, the compromise which took place between the opposite party no. 2/complainant and her husband signed the said compromise as a witness. There does not arise any question of demand of dowry by revisionist no. 3 and 4 from the complainant or her family, because both belong to different families and

¶14

CRLR No. 5309 of 2025

¶15

¶16

reside at different places. They reside at different places. In relation to the incident shown by the opposite party no. 2/complainant, on 09.03.2005 a complaint under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act was filed by the complainant before the learned trial court, but in the said complaint also no allegation was levelled against the revisionists.

¶17

Opposite party no. 2 has contended that opposite party no. 2 had lodged the FIR on 8.10.2004 against the revisionists for allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty. It is further contended that revisionists had filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8593 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court declining to interfere with the FIR, however, granted protection from arrest till conclusion of trial. On 5.12.2004 charge sheet had been submitted against the revisionists in crime no. 379 of 2004 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on 31.5.2005. Further the proceedings of the aforesaid case were stayed by this Hon'ble Court vide an interim order passed in Application (u/S 482 C.P.C.) No. 5010 of 2005 filed by the revisionists. On 21.9.2010, the said interim order passed in Application (u/S 482 C.P.C.) No. 5010 of 2005 was vacated. On 4.7.2019 the revisionists never pursued their own Application (u/S 482 C.P.C.) No. 5010 of 2005 which led its dismissal for want of prosecution. On 12.11.204 the revisionists filed discharged application without submitting the custody before the trial court without fulfilling the bail out, misusing the protection from arrest rendering the trial court infructuous effective proceedings till today. Opposite party no. 2 has submitted that she has also file a divorce petition.

¶18

In view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this is a very old matrimonial litigation. From the averments placed before the Court and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionists, it emerges that the matter reflects an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The revisionists are family members of the husband, excluding the husband himself. The FIR was lodged against ten persons, out of whom four have since died. The remaining accused, who are the present revisionists, are the in-laws of opposite party no. 2. It appears to be an appropriate matter to be referred to the Mediation Centre. The impugned order dated 27.08.2025 has been passed by the learned Upper Laghuvad Nyayadheesh/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, in a routine manner. The discharge application was rejected; however, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, the application required much more serious and careful consideration. This Court is a Court of record, and the jurisdiction in a criminal revision is very limited and confined to questions of law. Nevertheless, the facts of the case are required to be seriously analyzed and considered by the learned trial court.

¶19

In view of the above, the learned trial court is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the discharge application filed by the revisionists in the light of the observations made hereinabove, after considering the exceptional circumstances of the case and after perusing the entire material available on record. The learned trial court may also consider the issue of mediation. The involvement of the Secretary, Legal Services Authority,

¶20

CRLR No. 5309 of 2025

¶21

¶22

Moradabad, may be taken into consideration. The divorce petition has also been filed by opposite party no. 2. Both opposite party no. 2 and her estranged husband, Dr. Sandeep Agarwal, have been residing separately for more than 20 years. Hence, the option of mediation and conciliation between them may also be considered by the learned trial court.

¶23

The impugned order dated 27.8.2025 passed by the learned Upper Laghuvad Nyayadheesh/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, in Case No. 7393 of 2019 arising out of case crime no. 379 of 2004, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut is hereby set aside and the criminal revision is allowed accordingly.

¶24

January 9, 2026 M. Tarik

¶25

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶26

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Rejection of the application for discharge filed by the revisionists in Case No. 7393 of 2019 arising out of case crime no. 379 of 2004.¶11
Upper Laghuvad Nyayadheesh/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad · 27.8.2025
Prior proceeding
Per the revisionists' submission, on 08.10.2004, due to discord with her husband, opposite party no. 2/complainant took all her belongings and, after entering into a compromise, left with her parental family.¶13
Prior proceeding
Per opposite party no. 2's contention, she lodged the FIR on 8.10.2004 against the revisionists alleging demand of dowry and cruelty.¶17
Prior proceeding
Per opposite party no. 2's contention, the revisionists filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8593 of 2004, disposed of by this Court declining to interfere with the FIR but granting protection from arrest till conclusion of trial.¶17
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet submitted against the revisionists in crime no. 379 of 2004 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act (the text states both 5.12.2004 and 31.5.2005 as dates, reproduced as printed).¶17
Prior proceeding
Proceedings of the aforesaid case stayed by interim order in Application (u/S 482 C.P.C.) No. 5010 of 2005 filed by the revisionists; the interim order was vacated on 21.9.2010.¶17
Prior proceeding
On 4.7.2019 the revisionists' Application (u/S 482 C.P.C.) No. 5010 of 2005 was dismissed for want of prosecution.¶17
Prior proceeding
Per opposite party no. 2, on 12.11.204 (date as printed) the revisionists filed the discharge application without submitting custody or fulfilling the bail-out, misusing the protection from arrest.¶17
Prior proceeding
Per the revisionists' submission, on 09.03.2005 the complainant filed a complaint before the trial court under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, levelling no allegation against the revisionists.¶16
Prior proceeding
Opposite party no. 2 has also filed a divorce petition.¶17

Nitin Agarwal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Agarwal and 3 Others 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devendra Kumar Kesharwani and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Tiwari vs State of Up and Another

Santosh Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chanchal Rani vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raghvendra vs State of U.P. and Another