AJEET BAGHEL MEGHSHYAM v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHER
A227/6343/2025 · 2025-07-14
Nand Prabha Shukla
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 69487 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 69487 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113944 Court No. - 85 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6343 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ajeet Baghel Meghshyam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Other Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Prajapati,Mahesh Kumar,Maheshwari Prasad Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"To set aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 (annexure no. 1) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 118 of 2024 (Ajeet Baghel Versus State of U.P. and others) order dated 07.02.2024 (annexure no.1) passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/Fast Track Court/Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Complaint Case No. 23130 of 2022 (Ajeet Baghel Versus Ramkrishna Maharaj and others), P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura, whereby he rejected complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner." It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint case and after recording the statement of the complainant and the witnesses on oath under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the complaint was rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed a revision, which has also been dismissed. The main submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that though sufficient material was available on record, the accused-persons have not been summoned to face the trial. Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid contention. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that there are certain contradictions in the statement of the complainant and the eye-witnesses. There is no injury report or other material to substantiate their version. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned and the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Aditya Tripathi Digitally signed by :- ADITYA TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad