Allahabad High Court
Vandana Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 4 February, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:24974
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 808 of 2026
Vandana Gupta
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Vineet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Ranu Tiwari, G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ranu Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Under challenge is the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-Third, Gorakhpur in Case No.132791 of 2021 (State Vs. Satish Sudarshan Gupta and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.55 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gorakhpur.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur is wholly arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and has been passed without due application of judicial mind and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the learned trial court committed a patent error of law in allowing the application moved under Section 233(2) of the B.N.S.S. without taking into consideration the material fact that opposite party no. 2 did not approach the court with clean hands while filing the application dated 14.08.2025 under Section 233(2) B.N.S.S.
4. It is next submitted that the factum of filing a previous application seeking a joint trial, as well as the passing of the order dated 01.07.2025 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, in Case No. 132791 of 2021, whereby such application was dealt with, was deliberately suppressed. As a result, it is manifest that the subsequent application dated 14.08.2025 under Section 233(2) B.N.S.S. was not maintainable.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 114, wherein it has been held that a litigant who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 stands vitiated in law on account of concealment and suppression of material facts.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 89, wherein it was held that the decision to conduct a joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at the outset of the proceedings and for cogent reasons. The paramount consideration in such decision-making is whether a joint trial would cause prejudice to the accused or result in delay or wastage of judicial time. It was further held that even where the conditions under Sections 219 to 223 Cr.P.C. are satisfied, ordering a joint trial remains a matter of judicial discretion.
7. It is further contended that the learned trial court failed to assess the conduct of the private opposite parties, who appear to be interested only in lingering on the outcome of the pending criminal trial arising out of the First Information Report dated 15.08.2021. It is contended that on the date of filing of the application dated 14.08.2025 under Section 233(2) B.N.S.S., only one prosecution witness remained to be examined.
8. It is next submitted that the learned trial court did not adequately consider that holding a joint trial at such a belated stage would cause serious prejudice and irreparable loss to the revisionist. It is urged that, due to the conduct of the private opposite parties, the evidence in Complaint Case No. 31475 of 2021 has not been concluded till date and, therefore, could not be read against the revisionist. Consequently, the impugned order is alleged to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, and that the inordinate delay amounts to denial of justice.
9. By circumventing the order dated 26.08.2025 passed in Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 21730 of 2025, the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 came to be passed by the learned trial court, which is wholly unsustainable in law. The same has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and wastage of judicial time, particularly when substantial prosecution evidence has already been recorded in the criminal trial arising out of the First Information Report dated 15.08.2021, which is at the verge of conclusion. It is submitted that there is every likelihood of recording conviction of the opposite parties in view of the ample evidence available on record.
10. Learned trial court has also failed to consider the material fact that the mediation process, as directed by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10957 of 2022 vide order dated 28.07.2022 and in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18204 of 2023 vide order dated 23.05.2023, respectively, could not be undertaken. The said mediation did not progress due to non-deposit of the requisite amount of Rs. 30,000/- each at the instance of the private opposite parties, which indicates a lack of bona fide effort towards expeditious resolution of the dispute.
11. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order and that the trial of both cases ought to be conducted jointly.
12. The marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 as per Hindu rites and customs on 08.03.2018. The FIR was lodged on 15.08.2021. After a detailed investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. The trial in the said case is at its final stage, whereas Criminal Complaint Case No. 31475 of 2021 was filed by the revisionist against the opposite parties under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As per the order-sheet of Complaint Case No. 31475 of 2021, the trial therein is yet to commence.
13. It is further submitted that the opposite parties concealed the material fact before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, prior to passing of the impugned order dated 19.01.2026, that an application for transfer had been filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, vide order dated 01.07.2025, observed that at the stage of allowing the transfer application, it could not be concluded that both matters would be tried jointly and that both cases were merely transferred to a single court without any finding regarding joint trial. Thereafter, the accused persons filed the application under Section 233(2) B.N.S.S. before the Judicial Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur, on 14.08.2025, without disclosing the said order dated 01.07.2025.
14. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 INSC 1113, wherein, in paragraph 16, it was held that the principles governing the conduct of joint or separate trials have been elaborately dealt with by the Court in Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab (supra). The relevant paragraphs have been relied upon, particularly paragraph 51.2 & 51.3 are as follows:
“While applying the principles enunciated in Sections 218-223 on conducting joint and separate trials, the trial court should apply a two-pronged test, namely, (i) whether conducting a joint/separate trial will prejudice the defence of the accused; and/or (ii) whether conducting a joint/separate trial would cause judicial delay.
The possibility of conducting a joint trial will have to be determined at the beginning of the trial and not after the trial based on the result of the trial. The appellate court may determine the validity of the argument that there ought to have been a separate/joint trial only based on whether the trial had prejudiced the right of accused or the prosecutrix.”
15. In view of the above, it is evident that complete facts were not placed before the learned trial court by the opposite parties. Case No. 132791 of 2021 (State v. Satish Sudarshan Gupta and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2021, is at a final stage where the evidence is almost complete, whereas the complaint case is yet to commence. The opposite parties have not taken effective steps for expeditious disposal of the complaint case. Though the matter was referred to mediation, neither was the amount directed by this Court deposited nor were any effective steps taken for a speedy trial. A joint trial at this stage would further delay the proceedings and would not be in the interest of justice.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur, in Case No. 132791 of 2021 (State v. Satish Sudarshan Gupta and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gorakhpur is hereby set aside.
17. The criminal revision is allowed accordingly.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
February 4, 2026
M. Tarik
Â
Â
