HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1431 of 2026 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist is permitted to make necessary corrections in the memo of revision. 3. The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 04, Agra, in Complaint Case No. 789 of 2025 (Veer Narayan Rathaur v. Jeetu and others ). 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that his application has been wrongly rejected by the learned trial court under Section 226 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. The revisionist had filed a complaint under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190(1), 115(2), 352, 61, 351(2), and 316(2) of the B.N.S. against opposite party nos. 2 to 8. 5. It has been submitted that his son, namely Vishal Rathaur, was married to Divyanshi @ Ganga on 10.02.2023. He bore the marriage expenses from both sides. After the marriage, Divyanshi @ Ganga told the wife of the revisionist that she wanted to reside with her husband at his place of employment. However, she was informed that it was not possible as he was generally living on a ship. Thereafter, she stated that she wished to go to her parental home. 6. It has further been submitted that on 14.01.2024, the brother of Divyanshi @ Ganga, namely Jeetu, came to take her away, and thereafter the revisionist/complainant sent her with her brother along with the entire jewellery and cash. She returned on 18.02.2024, but the entire jewellery and cash were left at her parental home. Thereafter, on 15.10.2024 and 18.12.2024, when enquiries were made regarding the jewellery and cash, the accused persons allegedly hurled abuses, extended threats, assaulted them, and stated that they had deliberately retained all the jewellery and cash and would neither return the same nor send Divyanshi @ Ganga back. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Arfi, Ram Jatan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Veer Narayan Rathaur .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the said criminal complaint has been filed as a counterblast, as Case Crime No. 21 of 2025 has already been registered under Sections 61(2), 115(2), and 85 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act, which is pending. It has been submitted that the present complaint has been filed to save themselves from the earlier case. There is neither any truth in the allegations nor any supporting medical evidence of injuries. Therefore, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned trial court has passed a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order. It has been observed that although the complainant alleged that the jewellery had been retained by his daughter-in-law, Divyanshi @ Ganga, and her family members, no documentary evidence regarding ownership of the said jewellery has been filed. Hence, the ingredients of Section 316(1) of the B.N.S. are not fulfilled. A report was also received from the concerned police station indicating that the daughter-in-law of the complainant had already lodged a criminal case under Sections 61(2), 115(2), and 85 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act at the same police station, registered as Case Crime No. 21 of 2025. There is neither any medical evidence nor any documentary proof of ownership of the jewellery, nor any medical report supporting the alleged incident. 9. The learned trial court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. and others v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749, wherein it was held that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not sufficient for the complainant merely to produce two witnesses to support the allegations to initiate criminal proceedings. The learned trial court has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, (1993) 1 SCC 499, wherein it was held that issuance of process should not be mechanical and should not be made an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. 10. In view of the facts, circumstances, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the complaint. 11. There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. 12. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. February 25, 2026 K.K. Maurya CRLR No. 1431 of 2026 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad