HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14380 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following main prayer :- "(i) set aside the impugned order dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure No.1 to the misc. petition) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No.409 of 2024 (Rita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & others) as well as impugned order dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure No.2 to the misc. petition) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), New Court-10/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in Case No.207 of 2019 (Rita Vs. Ram Ashish & others)." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that private respondents were making rival claims upon an abadi land situated in village of the petitioner. Hence, a Panchayat was called on 23.6.2019 and it was settled in the said Panchayat that the disputed abadi land should remain in possession of the petitioner. After the dispute was resolved, the respondents arrived at the house of the petitioner and started assailing the petitioner and her family members. Petitioner and her family members were severely assaulted by the respondents who inflicted injuries by kicks and punches. Even petitioner and her other female members were also disrobed by the respondents. 4. In order to register her complaint against the respondents, the petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Rita Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) court, which was converted into Complaint Case No.207 of 2019 (Rita Vs. Ram Ashish & others). Statement of complainant her witnesses were recorded before the court wherein all the witnesses consistently corroborated the allegations. However, her complaint was dismissed by the trial court on 27.8.2024 by observing that allegations appear to be exaggerated because no injury report to substantiate the allegation of severe assault by respondents was submitted by petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that observation of the trial court is per se illegal because the allegations of the petitioner from the very beginning was that petitioner and her family members were assaulted by kicks and punches. Hence, there was no justification to seek injury report in case where the petitioner and her family members were assaulted by empty handed respondents. 5. It was submitted that aggrieved by the said order dated 27.8.2024, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.409 of 2024 (Rita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & others), which too was dismissed by the revisional court on 19.7.2025 without properly appreciated that the evidences recorded by the trial court are per se perverse and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court are liable to be set aside. 6. Learned AGA submitted that allegations, prima facie, seem to be exaggerated as the petitioner herself has admitted that an FIR was lodged by the respondents against the petitioner pertaining to the identical incident which demonstrates that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved as a counter-blast. He further submitted that despite allegation of severe assault, no injury report was produced by the petitioner during the complaint proceedings. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders of both courts. 8. It is apparent that the trial court has properly discussed the evidence recorded before it during the proceeding and came to the conclusion only after evaluating and appreciating the evidences recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The finding recorded by the trial court cannot be held to be illegal and perverse, particularly when it has adopted one of the A227 No. 14380 of 2025 2 two possible views arising from the record. 9. In the given circumstances, both impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court are upheld. 10. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. May 7, 2026 SK A227 No. 14380 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad