Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt. Rubina Bano vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 618 ALL

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 618 ALL
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Rubina Bano vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 31 March, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:22344
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2588 of 2026   
 
   Smt. Rubina Bano    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 5 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Rohit Kumar Sahu, Abhishek Shukla, Prateek Misra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 15
 
   
 
 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.      

1. In view of order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party nos.2 to 6 is dispensed with.

2. Instant application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed challenging the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Ayodhya in Complaint No. 616 of 2013 and the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by Additional Session Judge, Room No.9, Ayodhya in Criminal Revision No.219 of 2025.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the complaint was moved by the applicant under Section 190 CrPC on 09.025.2023 against opposite party nos.2 to 6 before Judicial Magistrate-III, Ayodhya alleging that opposite party nos.2 to 6 wanted to take share in her house which has been bought by the applicant's father-in-law by way of registered sale deed for which her father-in-law has filed civil suit before the civil Court. Opposite party nos.2 to 6 entered into the house of the applicant and unlocked the room which was opposed by the applicant, thereafter, she was beaten with fists, kicks and sticks and they also outraged her modesty.

4. It has been further submitted that at the time of incident, the applicant was pregnant, therefore, she could not get herself medically examined. The applicant moved an application before the Station House Officer of concerned Police Station but report was not lodged, thereafter, she moved criminal complaint under Section 190 CrPC, which has been rejected by vide impugned order dated 07.04.2025 against which the applicant filed revision which has also been rejected vide impugned order dated 08.01.2026.

5. It has been further submitted that in proceeding of Complaint No.616 of 2023, the Magistrate called report from the police station and as per police report, such incident did not take place and after considering the report as well as statement of the applicant and witnesses, the Magistrate has rejected the application under Section 203 CrPC in most arbitrary and illegal manner.

6. It has been further submitted that once there is allegation of outraging modesty of the applicant, the Magistrate did not try the opposite parties though the witnesses also supported the case of the applicant.

7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I for the State.

8. After going through the record, fact remains that it is allegation of the applicant that she was beaten by opposite party nos.2 to 6 but she failed to get herself medically examined. It is admitted on record that civil suit is pending between the parties. The Magistrate called police report from Police Station - Haiderganj, which indicates that the opposite party no.4/Shahnaj W/o Mohd. Umar has lodged FIR registered as Case Crime No.03 of 2023 against the applicant and five other co-accused. The report also indicates that there is no such incident took place as mentioned by the applicant and she has filed application just to create pressure. The fact is also recorded that she did not get herself medically examined to support her case. She has specifically stated that she was beaten by kicks, fists and lathi but in absence of any medical report, the adverse inference is to be drawn against the applicant. The application filed by the applicant was devoid of merits and that is why it was rightly rejected after recording the statement of the complainant as well as witnesses. There is no illegality and infirmity in the orders impugned and no interference in the impugned orders is required. The application is rejected.

March 31, 2026/Mohit Singh/-

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter