HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10672 of 2023 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant petition has been preferred seeking to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mainpuri, in Misc. Complaint Case No. 813 of 2021, Km. Priyanka v. Alok and others, under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bichhawa, District Mainpuri, as well as the Revisional order dated 12.04.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Criminal Revision No.120 of 2022. A further prayer has been made to remand back the matter to the learned trial court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mainpuri, along with an affidavit, seeking registration of an FIR against the respondent nos. 2 to 6. The learned trial court, however, treated the said application as a complaint and registered it as Misc. Complaint Case No. 813 of 2021, Km. Priyanka v. Alok and others. 4. It is further submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate, without properly considering the material facts, the gravity of the allegations, and the evidence on record, summoned only respondent no.2, Virendra Singh, to face trial under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by the said summoning order dated 23.08.2022, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.120 of 2022 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Singh Yadav, Sanjay Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Km. Priyanka .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Mainpuri. However, the revision was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2023 without adequate consideration of the factual matrix and legal aspects of the case. It is contended that the trial court committed a material illegality while passing the impugned summoning order. The trial court misappreciated the evidence and failed to summon respondent nos. 3 to 6, who are also alleged to have committed punishable offences under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned summoning order as well as the revisional order, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate has summoned only respondent no.2, who is a 70-year-old, while omitting to summon respondent nos. 3 to 6, without assigning any cogent or legally sustainable reasons for such selective summoning. Furthermore, the revisional court has dismissed the petitioner's revision petition without adequately examining the material facts, evidence, and legal issues involved in the matter. 6. It is a matter of concern that despite specific allegations against the husband and father-in-law of the petitioner, no summoning order has been passed against them, whereas respondent no.2, an elderly person, has been summoned to face trial. Such an approach reflects non-application of judicial mind and is deeply regrettable. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the summoning order dated 23.08.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mainpuri, and the revisional order dated 12.04.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mainpuri, to decide afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition is allowed. October 9, 2025 A. Tripathi A227 No. 10672 of 2023 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad