Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44027 Court No. - 81 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3699 of 2023 Petitioner :- Devendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjani Kumar Shahwal Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Dwivedi,Ashok Kumar Gupta,G.A. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Anjani Kumar Shahwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 8, Shri Ratan Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record. 2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by petitioner with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 23.3.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.6, Mathura in Criminal Revision No.607 of 2022 (Devendra Singh Versus State of U.P. and others) whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner lodged an FIR on 4.12.2021, under Sections 498-A, 313, 328, 342, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against respondent nos. 2 to 8 alleging that he solemnized the marriage of his daughter Pooja with respondent No.2-Dharmendra on 27.2.2020 according to Hindu rites and rituals and presented gifts as per his financial status at the time of marriage but the opposite parties were not satisfied with the said dowry and soon after the marriage, they demanded dowry from the daughter of the petitioner and tortured her physically and mentally causing miscarriage and administered her forcefully some poisonous substance. 4. However, after the investigation, the police submitted a Final Report No.153 of 2022 dated 10.4.2022 alleging that no case was made out against the respondent nos. 2 to 8. 5. On 2.7.2022, learned Court below registered a Misc. Case No.1212 of 2022 and issued notice to the petitioner / first informant on the said final report fixing the date for 15.8.2022. However, on 14.9.2022, the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura accepted the Final Report No.153 of 2022 dated 10.4.2022 and the matter was consigned to records. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/first informant preferred a Criminal Revision No.607 of 2022 ( Devendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) before the District & Sessions Judge, Mathura to set aside the order dated 14.9.2022 which was rejected vide order dated 23.3.2023. 7. The main submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the final report was submitted on 4.10.2022 and the notice was issued to the first respondent on 2.7.2022, hence, there is glaring contradiction between the final report and the notice issued. It has been further contended that the petitioner did not go to the Court at Mathura on 10.8.2022 then how the signature of the petitioner was possible on the order-sheet. It was a forged signature of the petitioner managed by respondent no.2 to 8 in collusion with the Advocate. 8. It has further been asserted that the forged signature of the petitioner was not verified by the handwriting expert, hence, the order impugned, is wholly illegal and is liable to be set aside. 9. Further it was submitted that no notice of submission of final report was served upon the petitioner. 10. It has also been contended that the petitioner did not engage any counsel to contest his case then how an Advocate, Satendra Kumar appeared as counsel for the petitioner in the instant proceedings when the said counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the divorce petition only. 11. While opposing the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner, learned AGA for State has submitted that in the memo of petition, the date of final report has been wrongly mentioned as 4.10.2022 which according to the records is 10.4.2022. The petition has been filed on the basis of incorrect facts and is misconceived. 12. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of records, it transpires that there is no illegality in the order impugned. The order-ssheet indicates that the notice was duly served upon the petitioner and was present before the Court at the time of the passing of the order on the date fixed and did not oppose the submission of final report, therefore, it was accepted. Hence, there was no occasion for the commission of forgery of his signature. 13. The petitioner has filed the present petition on the basis of incorrect facts. 14. The petition being misconceived, is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Mukesh Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad