Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133612 Court No. - 92 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3597 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Usha Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shivam Tiwari Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shivam Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to set aside the judgement and order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No.349 of 2024 (Smt. Usha Vs. State of U.P. and another) and summoning order dated 28.06.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Saharanpur in Criminal Case No.1184 of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. Nathiram and another). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, an N.C.R. was registered against the petitioner. Thereafter an application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. was moved and investigation was conducted, wherein the name of Nathiram, Abhishek, Shiv Lal and Ishru were found to be implicated in the said case under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. It is further submitted that initially, the name of prospective accused Smt. Usha did not surface in the N.C.R. or the Tehrir submitted by the complainant/informant. Thereafter, the statements of P.W.-1 Pushpa Devi and P.W.-2 Jagpal were recorded. It is further submitted that, so far as the accused persons are concerned, they are the residents of same locality and known to each other. If that was so, there was no bar or any reason for the complainant/informant to nominate the prospective accused Smt. Usha in her complaint. It has also been noticed that thereafter, in the statement of P.W.-1, the incident has been exaggerated, which is different from the initial application submitted by the complainant/informant. It is further submitted that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned as well as revisional court both ignored the fact that the accused persons and prospective accused were residents of the same locality and were known to each other and so far as the allegation of theft and ancillary sections are concerned, nothing was mentioned in the initial application submitted to police. Apart from the altercation and assault, articles were alleged to have been stolen. It is further submitted that there was already an F.I.R. lodged by prospective accused Smt. Usha against the complainant, her husband and son. The present case has been lodged as a counterblast or to take revenge in respect of the earlier case, which was already pending, filed by the prospective accused Smt. Usha in the capacity of complaint against the informant, her husband and son. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the complainant is an illiterate lady and she could not narrate the entire incident and name of prospective accused Smt. Usha was not known to her and it was only when the statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded, this fact came to her knowledge. 6. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, since the complainant and accused persons belong to the same locality and same village, and hence, are known to each other, the incident which took place in the presence of the informant/complainant and her husband everyone was known to each other but they did not disclose the details of the incident, as far as the question of theft is concerned, the only averments made in the complaint are that there was some altercation between the complainant and the accused persons, but presence of the prospective accused Smt. Usha was not shown in the initial application moved on 26.10.2024, hence, there appears some merit in the arguments raised on behalf of petitioner. 7. Accordingly, as discussed in the foregoing paragraph, the present petition stands allowed and the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.8, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No.349 of 2024 (Smt. Usha Vs. State of U.P. and another) and summoning order dated 28.06.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Saharanpur in Criminal Case No.1184 of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. Nathiram and another) are hereby set aside. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Sanjeet Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad