Dismissed¶17

Vijay Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2026CRLR/894/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLR No. 894 of 2026; Allahabad High Court; Abdul Shahid, J.; criminal revision against rejection of discharge application; accused not named in FIR; no mention in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements; implication via application dated 25.03.2014; charge-sheet filed 23.04.2014; cognizance taken; no mini-trial at this stage; prima facie case; no illegality or irregularity; Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 352 IPC; Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Case Crime No. 390 of 2013; Kanpur Nagar; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

At the stage where cognizance has been taken and the charge-sheet filed, final interpretation of the evidence on record cannot be undertaken; neither meticulous examination nor appreciation of evidence nor a mini-trial is justified. ¶14

Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 is liable to be set aside and the criminal revision allowed on the ground that the revisionist is not named in the F.I.R. or in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and was implicated only on the basis of an application dated 25.03.2014. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

A prima facie case appears to be made out against the revisionist/accused persons notwithstanding that he was not named in the F.I.R. or in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

¶14

Key takeaways

There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 rejecting the revisionist's discharge application.ratio¶16
Each criminal case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and in accordance with law.obiter¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid, J.) dismissed against the order dated 09.01.2026 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court (Crimes Against Women), Kanpur Nagar, rejecting the revisionist's discharge application in Criminal Case No. 693 of 2014 (arising out of Case Crime No. 390 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar). The revisionist contended he was not named in the F.I.R. lodged on 29.12.2013 (incident of 18.11.2013) nor in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and was implicated only on an application dated 25.03.2014. Held: with the charge-sheet filed on 23.04.2014 and cognizance taken after due application of judicial mind, final interpretation of evidence cannot be undertaken at this stage; no meticulous examination, appreciation of evidence or mini-trial is justified; a prima facie case is made out against the revisionist; there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Decision dated February 6, 2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 894 of 2026

¶3

Vijay Kumar Shukla

¶4

	Versus .....Revisionist(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Ajai Kumar, Vivek Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 87

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court (Crimes Against Women), Kanpur Nagar, in Criminal Case No. 693 of 2014 (State versus Shashi Dwivedi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 390 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is not named in the F.I.R., nor is his name mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is contended that only on the basis of an application dated 25.03.2014, the revisionist has been implicated in the said offence. Since there is no mention of the revisionist in the F.I.R. or in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 is liable to be set aside and the criminal revision deserves to be allowed.

¶9

The incident is alleged to have taken place on 18.11.2013. The F.I.R. was lodged on 29.12.2013. The marriage took place on 18.11.2013, and the period of the incident is stated to be from 18.11.2013 to 10.12.2013.

¶10

After detailed investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 23.04.2014. The discharge application moved by the revisionist was rejected by the learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 09.01.2026. The chargesheet has been filed against the revisionist, and cognizance has already

¶11

CRLR No. 894 of 2026

¶12

¶13

been taken against the accused after due application of judicial mind by the concerned trial court.

¶14

At this stage, final interpretation of the evidence available on record cannot be undertaken. A prima facie case appears to be made out against the revisionist/accused persons. Since cognizance has already been taken and the charge-sheet has been filed, any meticulous examination or appreciation of evidence, or conducting a mini-trial, is not justified at this stage in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶15