inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Allahabad High Court
Chokhey Lal vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 9 February, 2026
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:27918 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1576 of 2026 Chokhey Lal .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 53 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Vipin Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner- Chokhey Lal, with the prayer quashing/set-aside/modify the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Agra in Complaint Case No.11887 of 2022 (Chokhe Lal Vs. Narendra and others), under section 406 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra in respect respondent nos.3 to 8 and order dated 12.09.2025 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.11, Agra in Criminal Revision No.1127 of 2024 (Chokheylal Vs. State of U.P. and Others). Commanding and directing the concerned court to pass an order and summon the respondent nos.3 to 8 namely Veeru @ Virendra Suhani, Deepak, Shyamwati, Rashmi and Raj Kuma for the offense committed by them, in the interest of justice. Any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The facts of the case are that an application dated 02.09.2022 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner against the respondent nos. 2 to 8 which was treated as a complaint and the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses Ramveer as P.W.-1 and Shivram as P.W.-2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded subsequent to which the trial court concerned vide its order dated 11.11.2024 summoned only Narendra under Section 406 I.P.C. A revision against the said order was preferred by the petitioner which stood dismissed vide judgement and order dated 12.09.2025 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Agra and the order dated 11.11.2024 was affirmed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned of the trial court and that of the revisional court are without application of mind and the said courts failed to appreciate that there are 06 other accused in the matter and the allegation against all the accused are under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. also but the trial court concerned summoned the accused Narendra only under Section 406 I.P.C. against which a revision of the petitioner stood dismissed wherein even the revisional court failed to appreciate the said facts in their true prospective. It is submitted that as such the matter deserves to be allowed and the prayer as prayed for be granted.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the writ petition and arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the dispute in the present matter arises out of matrimonial relationship between the daughter of the petitioner / complainant and Narendra the accused who has been summoned under Section 406 I.P.C. It is submitted that the trial court concerned after going through the records has passed a detailed order summoning the accused Narendra under Section 406 I.P.C. It is submitted that the revisional court also after looking to the matter on record has passed a detailed judgement and order dated 12.09.2025 which also does not call for any interference.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the complainant of the present case. He filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the accused which was treated as a complaint and enquiry was conducted by the trial court concerned. The trial court then summoned one of the accused Narendra under Section 406 I.P.C. A revision by the petitioner of the said matter stood dismissed. Then the present writ petition has thus been filed before this Court. The order of the trial court and that of the revisional court are detailed order on merits of the matter. The trial court has considered the enquiry conducted by it in as much as the statement of the complainant and his witnesses have also been considered. The said order is a speaking order which does not call for any interference. Even the revisional court has passed a detailed judgement & order while considering the order of the trial court and has dismissed the said writ petition on merits. The said judgement and order is also a speaking order addressing the matter on merits. No ground for interference is made out.
8. The present petition is dismissed.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
February 9, 2026
AS Rathore
