HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 702 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2023, State of U.P. Vs. Kumari Kirti Singh, arising out of case crime no. 175 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kalpi, District Jalaun. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is the nanad (sister-in-law) of the deceased and, at the time of the alleged incident, she was unmarried. The FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay of six months after due legal consultation. At the time of preparation of the inquest report, the complainant was present; however, no complaint was lodged at that stage. Thereafter, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed, pursuant to which the FIR came to be registered. 4. It is further submitted that the date of occurrence is 01.03.2022, whereas the FIR was registered on 13.09.2022 under Section 302 IPC against the named accused, namely, Ashish Singh, Shiv Dutt Singh, and the present revisionist. The marriage of the deceased had taken place in the year 2008 with Ashish Singh. The deceased had two sons; the elder son was 11 years old and the younger was 8 years old at the time of the incident. 5. It is alleged that Ashish Singh had an illicit relationship with another woman of the village, which was complained of by the deceased to her father-in-law, Shiv Dutt Singh. On account of such complaint, Shiv Dutt Singh and the revisionist allegedly caused mental harassment and cruelty to the deceased. The deceased is said to have informed her parental family about the same. It is further alleged that on the night of 01/02.03.2022, Ashish Singh, Shiv Dutt Singh, and the revisionist, after hatching a conspiracy, administered a poisonous substance to the victim and committed her murder. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Deepak Kaushik, G.A. Kumari Kirti Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the affidavit of Dharmendra Singh/opposite party no.2, wherein it is stated that the deceased was short-tempered and that she committed suicide herself. It is also submitted that the two children of the deceased are residing with their father. Learned counsel further submits that the trial court has not recorded proper satisfaction in the impugned order. Lastly, it is argued that the revisionist is now married, has one child, and is residing in her matrimonial home. 7. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that there are only general allegations against the revisionist. The FIR was lodged with considerable delay under Section 302 IPC; however, after investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the revisionist and other accused persons under Section 306 IPC. 8. At the stage of criminal revision, a joint affidavit of the revisionist and Dharmendra Singh/ opposite party no. 2 has been filed. In the said joint affidavit, opposite party no. 2 has admitted that the deceased was short- tempered and, due to that reason, committed suicide. It is further stated that there is no evidence against the revisionist with regard to abetment. In paragraph 9 of the joint affidavit, it has been prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present revison and discharge the revisionist from the offence and quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid sessions trial in light of the judgment in B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 46 SCC 779, as the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 have entered into a compromise and resolved their dispute outside the Court. 9. The scope of criminal revision is limited to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order, and to ascertain whether there is any jurisdictional error. It does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or conducting a mini-trial. 10. The revisionist is named in the FIR and is already on bail. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against her under Section 306 IPC. The discharge application filed by the revisionist has been duly considered by the learned trial court and rejected by a reasoned order. At this stage, meticulous appreciation of evidence or conducting a mini-trial is not permissible. 11. In view of the aforesaid considerations, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. February 24, 2026 M. Tarik CRLR No. 702 of 2024 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad