Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12644 Court No. - 16 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1895 of 2025 Applicant :- Shfikun Nisha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 10 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Iqbal Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard Shri Iqbal Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajeev Kumar Verma, learned AGA for the State. Notice to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned summoning order dated 18.05.2024, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Sitapur in Complaint No. 44965 of 2022 In Re:-"Shafikun Nisha Versus Waheed Ahmad and others", under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 1.P.C., Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur and revisional order dated 24.01.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Criminal Revision No. 81 of 2024 In Re: "Shafikun Nisha Versus State of U.P. and others" and direct the learned trial court to summon all the accused persons i.e. opposite parties no. 2 to 11 to face trial, in the light of evidences produced by applicant and her witnesses, in the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although allegations were made against all the private parties, however, only one accused that is the petitioner’s husband has been summoned by the learned court below. It is further submitted that the revisional court also failed to consider this fact, as well as the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses' statements recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Perused the record. A perusal of the impugned summoning order shows that learned court below while summoning the accused Waheed Ahmad (husband of the complainant) has considered the fact that in the complaint as well as statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., general allegations were levelled against all the family members of the husband. Since no specific act was attributed to them, only Waheed Ahmad was summoned. Likewise, the revisional Court after carefully analyzing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the complainant’s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., concluded that no involvement of other accused persons was evident. The revisional court also examined the testimony of Molhe and found that he was not an eyewitness. So far as the other witness namely Inamul Haq is concerned, the Appellate Court found that he, too, was not an eye witness and he only supported the statement of A.P.W. 1 Molhe. The Appellate Court further observed that this witness (Inamul Haq) did not make any clear allegations against the petitioner’s relatives for committing any offence. The appellate court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 (particularly paragraphs 25 and 28), and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 (with emphasis on paragraph 335), dismissed the revision, finding no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned court below. After perusal of the record, this Court also finds no error in the findings of the learned revisional court or the learned court below. However, if, during the trial, any evidence comes indicating the involvement of other accused persons besides Waheed Ahmad, the petitioner shall have the legal remedy to proceed against them as per the law. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench