HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Dheeraj And 3 Others .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Shujauddin, Ziauddin Farooqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, in Case Crime No. 600 of 2017, under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Muhammadabad, District Mau.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that initially opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.12.2017 against the revisionists. The statement of the first informant, namely Tetri Devi, was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she supported the contents of the F.I.R. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 11.04.2017. It was submitted that there was no external injury on the body of the deceased. The statements of witnesses, namely Mishri Chauhan, Suban Chauhan, Santosh Chauhan, Abubakar Khair, Nanahi Chauhan, Ashok Chauhan, Shivvachan, Rizwan, and others, were recorded, and affidavits were also filed. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) recorded the re-statement (Majid Bayan) of the first informant, Tetri Devi, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After investigation, a final report was submitted on 26.03.2018. The first informant filed a protest petition against the final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, on 05.06.2025.

4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order dated 22.08.2025 accepting the protest petition. Thereafter, the impugned order dated

22.12.2025 was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

Hence, the present criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged after an approximate delay of seven months. As per the F.I.R., the incident took place on 10.04.2017, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.12.2017 under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C. On the complaint of Smt. Tetri Devi, wife of Vijay Chauhan (the deceased), the F.I.R. was lodged against the accused persons, namely Dhiraj, Chakauti, Kanhaiya, Ramrat, Tunmun, Mansingh, and Shanichari.

6. As per the contents of the F.I.R., all the accused persons are alleged to be mischievous in nature. The informant has only one daughter, aged about 19 years, and her priority was the marriage of her daughter. The accused persons allegedly used to take the husband of the informant to their house and provide him with meat and liquor in order to grab the informant's property. Thereafter, they allegedly controlled her husband and influenced his actions. The husband of the complainant opposed the allegedly fabricated will of his father. It is alleged that the accused persons manipulated matters at the Tehsil.

7. On the night of 10/11.04.2017, all the aforesaid accused persons allegedly conspired to grab the property and, in order to keep the matter secret, conspired to kill the husband of the informant by administering poison. He died in the morning at about 4:00 a.m. in the hospital. The post-mortem was conducted, and the immediate cause of death was suspected poisoning; the viscera were preserved for chemical analysis.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that, as per the doctor's statement, there was no external ante-mortem injury on the body of the deceased. The cause of death was suspected poisoning, and the viscera were preserved for chemical analysis. As per the chemical analysis, aluminium phosphide poison was found in parts of the viscera (1–5) and material (7), as per the FSL report. Reliance was placed on CD No. 18 and SCD-17, wherein it was noted that the cause of death of Vijay Chauhan was due to self-

consumption of a poisonous substance.

9. Learned counsel furthe