Manvir Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6183 of 2025

¶3

Manvir Singh

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Lalit Kumar Srivastava

¶6

Court No. - 87

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and the learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 7.

¶9

The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 12.2.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, by which the complaint filed by the revisionist being Complaint Case No. 21812 of 2021, under Section 323, 504, 506, 498A, 302, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Hasayan, District Hathras has been rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that impugned order passed without application of judicial mind and same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the impugned order has been passed ignoring the material facts and evidences on record and by misinterpretation of provisions of Section 203 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court has not properly considered the statement recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the deceasedSapna Singh died due to beating of opposite parties in her matrimonial home.

¶12

Learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the deceased Sapna Singh had died due to natural death on account of her illness. She was treated at AIIMS, New Delhi by the opposite parties. He further submitted previously an FIR was lodged and charge sheet was submitted

¶13

CRLR No. 6183 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

only against husband, but lateron, the matter was compromised. Learned counsel has further submitted that this matter also compromised, hence no postmortem took place and all the requirements were fulfilled whichever was demanded by the complainant.

¶16

Perusal of the record reflects that the complaint has been filed by the revisionist against all the family members of his deceased daughter. In the original complaint, the opposite party no.2-Gaurav Singh is the husband, opposite party no.3-Virendra Singh is the father-in-law, the opposite party no.4-Smt. Sarswati Devi is the mother-in-law, the opposite party no.5Pinki @ Priyanka is the married 'nanad', opposite party no.6-Ashwani is the husband of opposite party no.5(Nandoi). The complainant also included opposite party no.6-Sudhakar Singh, who was the mediator in arranging the said marriage which took place on 24.11.2012 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies.

¶17

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that after marriage, an FIR was earlier filed by means of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the year 2014 under Sections 498A, 323, 315, 506 IPC against all the aforesaid opposite parties. Whereas, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 7 has submitted that in the said FIR, the charge sheet has been filed only against husband-Gaurav Singh and no involvement of other opposite parties was found in the said matter. He has further stated that later on, the matter was compromised which is not denied by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶18

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the learned trial court had completely ignored the material mentioned in the complaint and stated that the deceased had been seriously hit on her head by pushing her towards wall, hence she had suffered serious hemorrhage in her head and internal injuries in brain, it was later on converted into brain hemorrhage. They have not provided her correct treatment and ultimately to safeguard themselves, the deceased was admitted at the final stages at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi in her last stage, where she has died due to that serious injuries which was caused to her in the head and due to brain hemorrhage she died.

¶19

CRLR No. 6183 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

The complainant has specifically mentioned that the deceased recorded her dying declaration prior to her death that has been recorded in the mobile of Sita Devi wife of Sanjay Singh, who is daughter-in-law of the complainant. All have been narrated infront of Rajesh Kumar.

¶22

Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 has submitted that this matter has been compromised between the parties and whatever requirement was made by the complainant that was fulfilled, hence there was no postmortem took place of the deceased and the matter was finally resolved. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 7 has submitted that after death of deceased, the family members of the revisionist has demanded that his daughter has died due to brain tumor, hence they provide FD of Rs. 5 lacs in the name of two children and 10 Bigha land in the name of her son. In that compliance, FD of Rs. 5 lacs was made in the name of Avni daughter of Sapna (deceased) in which Rs. 2.5 lacs in the name of Virendra Singh and Avni was made nominee and Rs. 2.5 lacs in the name of brother of Sapna, where Avni was nominee. 10 Bigha land was transferred in the name of Bharat son of Sapna on 29.11.2021. Thereafter, no postmortem of the deceased was took place.

¶23

The said complaint was filed on 17.12.2021, whereas the deceased died on 28.11.2021. The complainant has previously also implicated all in-laws of her daughter in the previous FIR of case crime No. 180 of 2014, whereas no offence was found against all other named accused except husband (Gaurav Singh), against whom, charge has been filed. Thereafter, that matter was also entered into compromise. Thereafter, she was residing in her matrimonial home. They had two children. There are continuity of treatment and in between no complaint of any kind of maltreatment or demand of dowry or torture has ever been made by the complainant. The deceased died in the Hospital. No postmortem was conducted with due consent of both the parties. On demand of complainant, Rs. 5 lacs FD and ten Bigha land was also transferred in the name of two children of the deceased Avni and Bharat. Thereafter, this further complaint has been filed. In the said complaint, the complainant has impleaded all the members of the family including married 'nanad' and 'nandoi' and mediator, who has performed marriage in the year 2012.

¶24

CRLR No. 6183 of 2025

¶25

4

¶26

In view of the facts, reasons and circumstances mentioned in the impugned order dated 12.2.2025 and complete genesis of the incident does not found any prima facie case against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7. There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. The revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

The criminal revision is dismissed.

¶28

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶29

March 10, 2026

¶30

sfa/

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manvir Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manvir Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bareilly Development Authority Vs Rajendra Prasad

Aarti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shabana Parveen vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhimanyu @ Mannu vs State of U.P. and Another

Aarti vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Irsad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others