HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7817 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant(s) and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present application has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "To set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of case criminal no 456/2024 pending in the court of Civil Judge (JD/FTC/Offence Against Women) Districy- Ayodhya, arised out of Fir No- 21/2022 under section 498(A), 323,504,506 IPC r/w 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Mahila Thana, Ayodhya including the order dated 13.11.2024 whereby the charges against the petitioners were framed which are contained as Annexure no. 1,2 & 3 to this petition and stay the entire criminal proceedings, of aforesaid case crime number, to serve the end of justice." 3. Relief has been sought on the following two grounds as appears from the record as also as indicated by the learned counsel for the applicants Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh:- (i) The first ground relates to the Call Detail Report (in short "CDR") of the Informant. On this aspect Shri Rajendra Singh submitted as under . (a) According to CDR, the Opposite Party No. 2 was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajendra Pratap Singh, Ayushi Dixit, Jyoti Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shyam Lal And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) present at Lucknow on 08.08.2021. (b) 08.08.2021 is the date of the incident indicated in the FIR, under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Ayodhya and place of incident as per this FIR is House No. 209, Mauja Angna Kol, Police Station - Gosainganj, District - Sultanpur and time indicated there is 04:00 p.m. (c) Thus, in view of CDR, the Opposite Party No.2 was not present on 08.08.2021 at the time and place of incident, indicated above, and she was present at Lucknow and thereafter in the evening of 08.08.2021 at Ayodhya and therefore, the story setup in the FIR with regard to incident occurred on 08.08.2021 at the time and place indicated therein is false and in this view of the matter the interference of this Court is required. (d) Charge-sheet has not been filed against co- accused Santosh Bheem after considering CDR and this fact also indicates that allegations in the FIR against the applicants are false and concocted. (e) Charge-sheet has not been filed against other two unknown persons as no evidence was found during investigation. This fact also indicates that FIR is false and concocted. (ii) The trial is proceeding at Ayodhya, though it should not be for the reason that in the FIR No. 21 of 2022, the allegations have been levelled against the applicants who were at the place situated in District - Sultanpur on 08.08.2021 and also against the co-accused Santosh Bheem (Jeth/brother-in-law of the Opposite Party No. 2, who was also at same place on 08.08.2021 and the charge-sheet has not been filed against two A482 No. 7817 of 2025 2 unknown persons, who as per FIR threatened to life and hurled abuses at Ayodhya on 08.03.2022 at about 4.30pm. 4. Opposing the instant application, it is stated by learned AGA that Opposite Party No. 2 at the time of lodging of FIR was residing at Ayodhya, and the FIR was lodged at Ayodhya, which could be lodged in matrimonial cases by a wife, as held by Hob'le Apex Court in various pronouncements including the case of Rupali Devi v State of Uttar Pradesh (2019 (5) SCC 384). Thus, the trial could proceed at Ayodhya and therefore, there is no force in the argument of applicant that trial could not proceed at Ayodhya. 5. In regard to CDR, learned AGA stated that CDR is not a proof of presence of a person at a particular place. Thus the ground based upon CDR has also no force. 6. It is also stated by learned AGA that Investigating Officer in dropping the name of the brother-in-law of Opposite Party No. 2 on the basis of CDR has committed error of fact. 7. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, this Court finds force in the submissions of learned AGA. Accordingly, the instant application is rejected. No order as to costs. September 19, 2025 Mohit Singh/- A482 No. 7817 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench