HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12618 of 2026 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. The petition is filed with the following prayer: "(i) Call for the record and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure no.1) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO Court No. 03, Firozabad in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2026 (Smt. Madhumala Vs. Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Yadav and others) as well as order dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure no.2), so far as refusal of summons of the respondent no.3 & 4, the father- in-law & mother-in-law respectively, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shikohabad, Firozabad in complaint case no. 1905 of 2025 (Smt. Madhumala Vs. Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Yadav and others) under section 85, 115(2) of B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sirsaganj, District-Firozabad. (ii) Summon the accused respondent no. 3 & 4 in complaint case no. 1905 of 2025 (Smt. Madhumala Vs. Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Yadav and others) under section 85, 115(2) of B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Sirsaganj, District-Firozabad." 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that opposite party nos.3 and 4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law. The complaint was filed by applicant, who is wife in which summons have been issued against opposite party no.2/husband and no summons have been issued against opposite party nos.3 and 4. 4. Perusal of statement of complainant under Section 223 BNSS would go to show that vague and general allegations have been made in the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Pravesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt. Madhumala .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) statement against opposite party nos.3 and 4. 5. It seems that there is matrimonial dispute. The date of offence has not been stated in the statement. The statement is wholly vague in nature. Revisional court has rejected the revision on the ground that there is no specific allegation against opposite party nos.3 and 4. 6. This Court is of the view that the revisional has committed no error in passing the impugned order and as such, the petition is dismissed. September 14, 2026 D. Tamang A227 No. 12618 of 2026 2 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad