Neetesh Singh And Another vs State of U.P. and Another

A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2041 of 2025
Neetesh Singh And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, Kiran
Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shyam Shankar Shukla
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel for revisionists,
Mr. S.K. Ojha, the learned AGA appearing on behalf of State-opposite party
no. 1, Mr. Amod Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shyam Shankar
Shukla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and
perused the record.
2. Revisionists Neetesh Singh and another have approached this Court by
means of present Criminal Revision assailing the propriety of impugned
order dated 15.02.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh
(hereinafter referred to as jurisdictional magistrate) in Misc. Case No. 4612
of 2025 (Poonam Devi Vs. Neetesh and others) arising out of Case Crime
No. 133 of 2018, under section 376-D, 506 IPC, Police Station Lodha,
District Aligarh whereby the jurisdictional magistrate rejecting the final
report in Case Crime No. 133 of 2018, under section 376-D and 506 IPC and
summoned the revisionists as accused persons.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present criminal revision has
been filed on the grounds that while passing the impugned order the
jurisdictional magistrate has not considered the earlier material collected
during the investigation, the impugned order has been passed without
applying judicial mind relying upon averments of protest petition and prayed
for setting aside the impugned order.

CRLR No. 2041 of 2025
2
4. The factual matrix of the case is that an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was
moved by opposite party no. 2 with allegation that informant is the resident
of Gandhi Nagar, Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh and at present
she has been living with her family in village Dharampur Kheda, Police
Station Chhapraula, Ghaziabad for the last one year. On 28.01.2018, from
her present address she was going to her permanent address via Noida and
was waiting conveyance at Pari Chowk, in the meantime the revisionists
came in a car, who were in her husband's acquaintance and asked her that
where she was going on her discloser that she was going to Aligarh the
revisionists told her that they also were going Aligarh and offered her lift
then she accompanying the revisionists. When all of them reached near
Parsera Gate at 5:00 pm, these people turned the car towards Parsera village,
when the informant objected where they were going, all of them took out
their guns and started threatening her not to raise alarm. After going a little
distance, they stopped the car on the side of the Kachha Bombay Pari and,
showing the guns, forcibly dragged her out of the car and took her to a
mustard field and all of them raped her one by one. When the informant tried
to raise alarm, the revisionists threatened to kill her showing pistols. On
hearing the informant's scream, two persons passing by on a motorcycle
came to the spot and on their exhortation the revisionists fled away from the
spot in their car, leaving the informant on spot and displaying the pistols. On
query of informant the witnesses disclosed their name and address and took
her to Police Station, where she informed the incident to police but the
police did not pay heed then on 30.01.2018 she sent registered letter to
Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh but that also went in vein then she
filed application before Jurisdictional Magistrate on 02.02.2018. After
completion of statutory investigation the Investigating Officer submitted
final report against which the informant filed protest petition and the
Jurisdictional Magistrate passed the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionists submitted that after
lodging the first information report the victim/opposite party no. 2 was
examined under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. after 46 days to the incident
which are noting but a verbatim of the FIR version wherein it was contended
that on 28.01.2018, the victim was going to Aligarh via Noida, at about
03:00 pm when she was reached near Pari Chowk and waiting for
conveyance then the revisionists are said to have came there in a car posing

CRLR No. 2041 of 2025
3
themselves as friends of victim's husband and they offered lift to victim to
leave her Aligarh, on the way the victim is stated to have been raped by them
on the pointing of tamancha in Aligarh near Parsera Gate at about 5:00 pm.
During the course of investigation, after 46 days to the incident the victim
was medically examined at MLG Govt. Women Hospital, Aligarh on
09.03.2018 at 3 PM. In the medical report no corroboration of rape is found.
6. As a matter of fact, no such incident as alleged took place on 28.01.2018.
According to prosecution story revisionists who are the relative offered lift
to opposite party no. 2 in their car from Pari Chowk at Noida while the
offence of rape was committed in Aligarh. A person having intention to
commit rape does not take the lady to long place even after the so called
incident the victim/opposite party no. 2 did not seek help from the police by
dialing emergency number. It is further contended that according to
statement of opposite party no. 2 the victim under section 161 Cr.P.C. she
never went at police station, which is evident from her statement recorded
u/s 161 Cr.P.C. occurring at page 82 of the paper book.
7. The fact that the victim was traveling from Ghaziabad to Aligarh is
considered true but the fact of taking lift from Pari Chowk at Noida is not
believable as there is no direct or indirect conveyance is available to
approach Aligarh from Pari Chowk. In her application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
the victim has not disclosed her address or the place from where she was
coming. There is no whisper about the relation of husband of victim with the
revisionists. There is only three days gap between the incident and filing of
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the so called eye
witness namely Kuldeep and Rinka @ Ram Kumar has denied have seen any
such type of incident with the victim. During investigation the statements of
mother and wife of revisionist no. 1 & Chhida Singh, Maharaj Singh,
Gulveer Singh and Ram Gopal under section 161 Cr.P.C. they all stated that
Dina @ Dinesh Kumar and his brother namely Raju @ Raj Kumar had
kidnapped the brother of revisionist no. 1 namely Abhishek Singh and killed
thereafter in that connection an FIR has been lodged at police station Lodha
District Aligarh against said Dina @ Dinesh Kumar. Since the revisionists
were witnesses in the aforesaid case so they have been falsely implicated by
victim/opposite party no. 2 at the behest of said Dina @ Dinesh Kumar.
During investigation, nexus between the victim/opposite party no. 2 and said

CRLR No. 2041 of 2025
4
Dina @ Dinesh Kumar has surfaced in Parcha No. IV-A of case diary. When
the Investigating Officer called the victim to make her examination before
the Magistrate the call was received by one Khichhu who is the father of
Dina @ Dinesh Kumar. Thus it is clear that the victim is under hands of
Dina @ Dinesh Kumar and considering the true facts and circumstances the
Investigating Officer submitted final report in the matter and the impugned
order has been passed only on the basis of bare averments made in protest
petition without any supportive affidavit or any additional affidavit.
8. In his written submission the learned counsel for revisionists has
explained the enmity between the revisionist no. 1 and Dina @ Dinesh
Kumar by referring to various civil and criminal proceedings pending
between them. It has been further contended that the enmity between
revisionist no. 1 and Dina @ Dinesh Kumar is fully established from the
material available on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
revisionists further submitted that the perusal of case diary reveals that when
the Investigating Officer dialed the number proposed to be of victim, the call
was received by the father of Dina @ Dinesh Kumar which itself is
sufficient to establish that opposite party no. 2 is only playing in the hands of
Dina @ Dinesh Kumar.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionists placed reliance upon
the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs.
Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases
335 wherein in Paragraph No. 102(7) of its judgment the Apex Court has
held that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding if maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive
for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge, such proceeding must be quashed exercising
extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or u/s 482 of the
code. He further submitted that the false has no ground and every liar left
some clue to catch his false hook. It is very clear that the present residence
of so called victim/opposite party no. 2 situates besides the main road from
Ghaziabad to Aligarh on which public conveyance easily remains available
all the government buses ran through that very way but in spite of
availability of easy facility why the victim chooses to go Aligarh via Noida
while no public conveyance is still available to Aligarh from the so called

CRLR No. 2041 of 2025
5
place of taking lift by victim. So far as the observation made by trial court in
the impugned order that the Investigating Officer has no authority to record
an additional statement of any witness u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is concerned, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of revisionists submitted that paragraph no. 109
of Police Regulations specifically provides as under:-
"109. The case diary must contain the particulars required by
Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in sufficient detail
to enable the supervising officer to appreciate the facts.
Variations in the statement of the complainant from the first
information report and the substance of supplementary statement.
if any, should be recorded.
The investigating officer is not bound to reduce in writing any
statement made to him in the course of an examination under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But if he does so,
he shall make a separate record of the statement of each such
person whose statement he records. The statement shall be
recorded in the first person and shall contain such detail as are
likely to be helpful in the prosecution of the case.
The law contemplates that the statement, if recorded, must be
recorded separately. It will, therefore, not be sufficient
compliance of the law if it is merely recorded that a witness
substantiates, corroborates or verifies the statement of the
complainant or another witness and as such the use of such
phrases should be avoided.
The statement of the accused person must, however, be recorded
in full. When investigation is closed for the day, the time and
place at which it is closed must be noted, and throughout the
investigation the diary must be sent daily to the Superintendent
on all days on which any proceedings are taken. If the
investigating officer is not himself in charge of station, the diary
must be sent through the officer-in-charge except when this will
cause delay. All changes of investigating officer must be recorded
in it. If more officers than one are investigating the same case
independently at the same time each should keep a separate

CRLR No. 2041 of 2025
6
diary. The provisions of Sections 162 and 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure must be carefully studied. In petty cases a
very short case diary will ordinarily be sufficient."
10. It is thus contended that in view of above conspectus the impugned order
is liable to be set aside by this court invoking the revisional jurisdiction
allowing the present criminal revision.
11. Per contra learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2
vehemently opposed the present revision orally as well as through written
submission. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2
submitted that after the incident the victim went to police station to lodge the
FIR about the incident, the police under the pressure of revisionist do not
lodge the FIR then she went to the office of S.S.P. Aligarh for lodging of the
First Information Report but it was not done so then she moved an
application on 02.02.2018 before the court of ACJM, Aligarh for registration
of the FIR against the revisionist. After registration of FIR on 23.02.2018 the
police started investigation of the case though the date of incident is
28.01.2018 at 03:00 pm that was too much delay by the act of police in
connivance with the revisionists. The Police in connivance with the
revisionists investigated the matter and mechanically without examined the
real witnesses filed a final report in the present case. The Investigating
Officer wrongly recorded the additional statement of victim after recording
her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C.. It is thus contended that the police wrongly
filed final report in the matter and the jurisdictional magistrate categorically
has criticized the act of Investigating Officer and passed the impugned order.
It is thus contended that the present criminal revision has no force at all, it is
devoid of merit, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Learned AGA
appearing on behalf of State-opposite party no. 2 also vehemently opposed
the criminal revision and prayed for dismissal of the criminal revision.
12. Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
revisionists, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1
and learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 it is evident
that two specific points raised by the learned counsel for revisionists have
remained unanswered by both the learned AGA as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 i.e.:-

CRLR No. 2041 of 2025
7
1. The inimical relationship between revisionist no. 1 and Dina
@ Dinesh Kumar, along with the alleged conspiratorial role of
the prosecutrix; and
2. The reason for choosing extraordinary way to go to Aligarh
from the alleged place of residence.
13. These two material points are still unanswered by opposite parties. Even
the impugned order passed by the court below is also silent on these two
points.
14. The purpose of criminal justice administration is to bring the faulty
person under the umbrella of legal proceedings and to bound him to face the
legal consequences of his acts, and not to permit harassment of any
individual on account of ulterior motive or personal vendetta.
15. It has further come on record that when the phone number given by the
victim supposing her own contact number is dialed such phone was picked
by father of Dina @ Dinesh Kumar. It is very crucial point which must be
explained by opposite parties. In the protest petition, no new evidence or
new situation has been disclosed. The only allegation made by the
victim/opposite party no. 2 is that the Investigating Officer did not genuinely
record the statements of alleged eye witnesses Rinka @ Ram Kumar and
Kuldeep under section 161 Cr.P.C. but the Investigating Officer recorded
their statement arbitrarily on his own behest under section 161 Cr.P.C. and
recorded the statement of some such witnesses were not named in the FIR
while the statements of the actual eye-witnesses were not properly recorded
to support the prosecution version.
16. However, despite making such allegations the victim/opposite party no.
2 did not file affidavits of the said eye- witnesses in support of her claim. In
above conspectus no court can rely on her averment made in paragraph 5 of
protest petition.
17. Moreover the protest petition is completely silent on points that the
present criminal proceeding were allegedly initiated at the behest of Dina @
Dinesh Kumar, that the victim is playing in the hands of such Dina @
Dinesh Kumar and as to why the victim choose to go to Aligarh from her

CRLR No. 2041 of 2025
8
residence via Noida where no public conveyance remains available. These
three points not only creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of the
prosecution story and without clarification on these points the total story
seems to be bundle of false.
18. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bhajan Lal (supra)
case is only to give protection from such proceeding instituted with ulterior
motive.
19. So far as the recording of additional statement of victim is concerned,
Paragraph 109 of U.P. Police Regulations empowers the Investigating
Officer to record supplementary statement during the course of investigation.
The expression "supplementary statement" used therein cannot be
interpreted in a narrow or restrictive manner. The true import of the word
"supplementary" under Paragraph 109 of U.P. Police Regulations is a
statement recorded for the purpose of discovering the real truth and
clarifying material of facts necessary for a fair investigation.
20. The additional statement of victim/opposite party no. 2 clearly reveals
that the questions put by the Investigating Officer were intended only to
ascertain the truth and not to support either side. The expression "Majid
Bayan " used by the Investigating Officer in legal and authoritative matters is
commonly translated as "supplementary statement" and in ordinary usage, it
may also be referred to as an "additional statement" while in judicial
proceeding it is often understood as a "further statement". Meaning thereby
the Investigating Officer has full right to record "Majid Bayan" of any
witness whenever required for a proper and effective investigation.
21. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the Jurisdictional Magistrate on
this point appears to be wholly misconceived and contrary to the settled
principles governing investigation under criminal law.
22. In view of above, in my opinion the impugned order has been passed
causing material irregularity and without considering each and every aspect
of the case, therefore, it is liable to be set aside and the present criminal
revision deserves to be allowed.
23. Accordingly the present criminal revision is allowed . The impugned

CRLR No. 2041 of 2025
9
order dated order dated 15.02.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Aligarh is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in
the light of the observations made by this Court and in accordance with law.
The parties are directed to appear before the trial court.

(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
May 4, 2026
Arti
Digitally signed by :-
ARTI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad