Dismissed¶18

Sonu Malik v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC3 May 2026CRLRD/1090/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 173(4) BNSS; FIR registration; application for registration of FIR and investigation dismissed; delay condonation 129 days; rape allegations; bald allegations; no medical examination; landlord's version denying occurrence; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Allahabad; order dated 01.10.2024; Criminal Revision Defective No. 1090 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Manoj Bajaj, J.; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer for condonation of delay of 129 days was rejected and the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 was not interfered with. ¶18

Sonu Malik Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the prayer for condonation of delay of 129 days was rejected and the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 was not interfered with.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 129 days in filing the revision petition should be condoned. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Considering the contents of the application filed by the petitioner coupled with the unexplained delay in availing the remedy of revision against the impugned order dated 1.10.2024, the Court found no ground to condone the delay.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The complaint in respect of the occurrence dated 7th April, 2024 contained bald allegations that six persons entered her house when the door was not bolted and raped her, with no other particulars or acquaintance with the opposite parties mentioned, and concededly there was no medical examination of the petitioner to support the allegations of rape.

¶15

Key takeaways

On a perusal of the impugned order, the Magistrate had carefully analyzed the application and submissions of the petitioner while dismissing her application, and had also relied upon the version of the landlord of the house, who denied any such occurrence.ratio¶16
No ground having been found to interfere with the impugned order dated 1.10.2024, the revision petition was dismissed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 1090 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court, Manoj Bajaj, J., decided May 4, 2026): The revisionist's application under Section 173(4) BNSS seeking registration of FIR against opposite party nos.2 to 7 for an alleged rape at her house on 17th April, 2024, and investigation, was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad by order dated 01.10.2024. The revision, filed with a delay of 129 days explained as time spent attending her ailing mother, was dismissed: the Court found the complaint contained bald allegations (six persons entering through an unbolted door) with no particulars or acquaintance with the opposite parties stated and no medical examination in support; the Magistrate had carefully analyzed the application and relied on the landlord's denial of any such occurrence; and, coupled with the unexplained delay, no ground existed to condone the delay or interfere with the impugned order.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1090 of 2025

¶3

Sonu Malik

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others	.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: In Person, Sonu Malik
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Lal Mani Singh, Dhirendra G.A., Ulajhan Singh Bind	Kumar,

¶6

Court No. - 85

¶7

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶8

Petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, whereby the application under Section 173(4) BNSS filed by the petitioner for registration of the FIR against opposite part nos.2 to 7, and investigation has been dismissed.

¶9

The petitioner appeared in person and prayed for condonation of delay of 129 days in filing the revision petition, on the ground that she remained busy in attending her ailing mother, therefore, the revision petition could not be filed in time. According to the petitioner, the delay caused in filing the revision petition is bonafide and unintentional.

¶10

On merits, the petitioner has argued that her complaint against opposite parties alleging rape in the house of the petitioner at mid night discloses commission of a cognizable offence, but the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 173(4) BNSS while dismissing her application vide impugned order dated 01.10.2024. She further submits that the she was alone in her house as her husband was away in relation to his business, when on 17th April, 2024 at around mid-night, the opposite parties nos.2 to 7, namely, Uljhan Singh Bind, Dhirendra Kumar, Lal Mani Singh Jugnu Singh, Deepak Kumar, Rahul Kumar and Ankur Kumar entered her house and raped her turn by turn. Petitioner submits that she was pregnant, when she was subjected to crime, and despite her cries, nobody came to her rescue and the application given to the police on 7th May, 2024 for registration of FIR

¶11

CRLRD No. 1090 of 2025

¶12

¶13

was not acted upon, therefore, the application was moved before the Magistrate for registration of FIR and investigation. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is bad in law and calls for interference by this Court in exercises of revisional jurisdiction.

¶14

During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by the petitioner as well as the opposite party no.2 that both the parties are advocates by profession. At this stage, the petitioner has highlighted that she even worked in the chamber of the opposite party no.2 Mr. Ulajhan Singh Bind and there also he exploited her continuously for two years.

¶15

Upon hearing the petitioner and considering her submissions, this Court finds that the complaint given by the petitioner in respect of the occurrence dated 7th April, 2024 contains bald allegations that six persons entered her house when the door was not bolted and they all raped her, but in support of these allegations, no other particulars much less acquaintance with the opposite parties is mentioned. Concededly, there is no medical examination of the petitioner to support her allegations of rape.

¶16

A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Magistrate has carefully analyzed the application and submissions of the petitioner while dismissing her application through impugned order dated 1st October, 2024 and the Magistrate also relied upon the version of the landlord of the house, who denied any such occurrence.

¶17

Thus, considering the contents of the application filed by the petitioner coupled with unexplained delay in availing the remedy of revision against the impugned order dated 1.10.2024, this Court does not find any ground to either condone the delay or interfere with the impugned order.

¶18

Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶19

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶20

May 4, 2026 Raj

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Malik v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Malik v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

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

Arjun vs State of Up and 5 Others

Murari vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jafar Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Uljhan Singh Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saddam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailesh Kumar Vs Smt. Sanju and Another