Allahabad High Court
Shivdayal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:182889
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2131 of 2025
Shivdayal Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Pramod Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Reserved on 7.10.2025
Delivered on 14.10.2025.
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA appearing for the State-respondent.
2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 21.1.2021, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Case No. 1188 of 2021 ( State Vs. Shivdayal Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 643 of 2019, under Sections, 376, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Sikandra District Agra, whereby the cognizance was taken and the summons were directed to be issued against accused-revisionist; as well as order dated 17.8.2024 framing charge against the accused-revisionist under Section 420 IPC in the aforesaid case.
3. The facts briefly stated is that the opposite party no.2-wife had lodged a first information report against the revisionist-husband which was got registered as Case Crime No. 643 of 2019, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra. The allegations made in the FIR was that the revisionist had fraudulently and deceitfully got married second marriage with the opposite party no.2 stating that he had not already married with any one, whereas in fact the revisionist had already married with another lady, namely, Smt. Savitri and from their wedlock, three children were born. On coming to know the fact that the revisionist had already married and when she resisted, the revisionist deserted her and gone away to live with his earlier wife, as a result of which, the aforesaid first information report was lodged.
4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet in the aforesaid case under Section 420 IPC only, upon which the court concerned has taken cognizance on 21.1.2021 against the revisionist and framed charge in the aforesaid case vide order dated 17.8.2024 under Section 420 IPC.
5. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist is that prosecution case is totally false, frivolous and concocted and in fact, the day on which the marriage was solemnized between the revisionist and the opp. party no.2 i.e. on 12.3.2005, both the parties were already married and kept their wife and husband alive and they did not take any divorce from each other and this fact was very well in the knowledge of both the parties and they were fully satisfied that they indulged into the matrimonial relation and got their marriage performed and lived together happily for a decade. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further contended that no forgery or cheating has been committed by the revisionist in performing his marriage with the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has also given an affidavit before the Arya Samaj that she had not marital relation with any one upto 12.3.2005, which reflects that a false affidavit was given by her at the time of her marriage. Learned counsel for the revisionist further stated that no case under Section 420 IPC is made out against the revisionist.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that charges as framed by the trial court cannot be framed as no offence under the aforesaid Section 420 IPC is made out against the revisionist.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further drawn attention of the Court that both revisionist and opposite party no.2 were living as husband and wife happily knowing well the fact that this is their second marriage, but when the financial position became worst, the dispute arose between them as a result of which, the opposite party no.2 has made false allegation and got the first information report lodged. It has further been contended that if the case of the opposite party no.2 is taken to be true that the revisionist has committed fraud against the opp. party no. 2, then same fate will also be met to the opposite party no.2 as she himself concealed the factum of second marriage with the revisionist.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further contended that the orders impugned in the present revision has been passed by the trial court without application of mind, hence same are liable to be set aside.
9. Learned AGA has submitted that the order impugned has correctly been passed by the trial court and deserve to be sustained. He further submitted that the charge has already been framed against the revisionist and, therefore, no revision would lie against order framing charge. Accordingly, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has raised factual issue that the revisional court is having jurisdiction to interfere into the orders, which are illegal, material or with material irregularity or jurisdictional error.
11. The question of factual issue has to be adjudicated by the trial court by providing opportunity of hearing as well as complying the provisions of principle of natural justice. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The revisionist as well as opposite party no.2 are having opportunity to lead their respective evidence before the trial court.
12. It is held by the Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and another; (2012) 9 SCC 460 that it has delved into the field of appreciation and evaluation of the evidence which is beyond the jurisdiction, either revisional or inherent, of the High Court under Section 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
13. Learned trial court has took cognizance vide order dated 21.1.2021 in Case Crime No. 643 of 2019, under Section 420 IPC giving rise Case No. 1188 of 2021 (State Vs. Shivdayal Singh). Thereafter, the trial court has framed charge against the revisionist vide order dated 17.8.2024.
14. It is also held by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Salim Khan; 2004 (48) ACC 606 that the revisional power cannot be exercised to quash the charge framed by the trial court.
15. In view thereof, the present criminal revision is having devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby dismissed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
October 14, 2025
sfa/
