Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 587

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
Neetesh Singh And Another - Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2041 of 2025
Decided On : 04-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, Kiran Gupta
For the Respondent: G.A., Shyam Shankar Shukla

A magistrate must apply judicial mind to investigative findings before rejecting a final report; mere allegations in a protest petition without evidentiary support are insufficient to justify summoning an accused when the investigation identifies significant discrepancies or potential for false implication.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) and 173 - Summoning of accused - Rejection of final report - Requirement of judicial application of mind - Investigative agencies submitted final reports citing lack of evidence and potential for false implication; lower court discarded such findings in favor of protest petitions without consideration of underlying investigative records.

(B) Police Regulations - Paragraph 109 - Supplementary statements - Investigative procedures - The authority to record supplementary statements is essential for uncovering the truth; such statements form a valid part of the investigation record and assist in determining the veracity of allegations. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The revisionists challenged an order passed by a magistrate that rejected a police final report following an investigation into allegations of a severe offence. The investigative record highlighted the possibility of false implication stemming from long-standing enmity between the parties; however, the lower court disregarded these findings, basing the summoning order solely on the contentions in a protest petition devoid of additional evidentiary support.

Findings of Court:
The lower court failed to address critical points raised during the investigative process, specifically the documented enmity between the parties and unexplained discrepancies in the complainant’s contact information, which suggested the involvement of third parties.

Issues: Whether the magistrate acted with proper judicial discretion when rejecting the outcome of a statutory investigation and whether the investigative procedures followed by the police were legally permissible under relevant regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: A magistrate cannot summarily reject a final report based on mere allegations in a protest petition without applying judicial mind to the investigation files. Investigative supplementary statements are valid tools for establishing the truth, and the failure of the lower court to address material discrepancies identified during the investigation constitutes a material irregularity.

Result: Revision allowed; impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual background and introduction to the criminal revision challenging a summoning order. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. parties' contentions regarding investigative integrity, witness credibility, and alleged enmity. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. judicial assessment of investigative procedure and the validity of supplementary statements. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. determination that judicial scrutiny of investigation reports requires addressing all material facts. (Para 21 , 22)
5. formal order setting aside the erroneous summoning order for reconsideration. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT :

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.

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