Dharmveer Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prateek Tyagi, learned AGA for State- respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and orders dated 02.04.2025, passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Criminal Revision No. 403 of 2024 (Dharmveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and another), as well as the judgment and order dated 30.08.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar, in Complaint Case No. 3942/9/2022 (Dharmveer Singh vs. Brajpal Singh), relating to Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar, whereby the complaint of the petitioner has been rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C., and the said order has been affirmed by the learned revisional court. The petitioner has further prayed that the matter be remitted back for fresh consideration of the complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Complaint Case No. 3942 of 2022 (Dharmveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and another) was instituted before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner's daughter-in-law left her matrimonial home along with her son after the death of the petitioner's son in the year 2018, and that she left the matrimonial home in April, 2019. It was further alleged that the daughter-in-law was in contact with the respondent, who instigated her to lodge a false complaint against the petitioner. It was further alleged that on 24.1.2022, at about 8:00 AM, when the petitioner was proceeding towards the railway crossing, he questioned the respondent as to why he and the petitioner's daughter-in-law were harassing him. Upon this, the respondent allegedly assaulted the petitioner with sticks, fists, and kicks, and also demanded money by way of extortion. Learned counsel further submitted that the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were duly recorded by the learned Trial Court; however, the complaint was dismissed vide order dated 30.8.2024 on the ground that the dispute between the parties appeared to be a property dispute, which had motivated the petitioner to make false allegations against the respondent, who is a driver. It was contended that the observations made by the learned Trial Court are in the nature of a defence available to the accused persons, which could not have been considered at the stage of deciding the complaint under Sections 203 or 204 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.8.2024, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.403 of 2024, which too was dismissed vide order dated 2.4.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts below have committed gross illegality in ignoring the allegations made in the complaint. It was argued that the allegations were straightforward and have been disbelieved on untenable and exaggerated grounds. Therefore, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. Learned AGA for the State-respondent submitted that the learned Magistrate had examined the statements of all witnesses, including that of the petitioner, before passing the order. The findings of the learned Trial Court are based on conclusions drawn from the statements of the petitioner and his witnesses. It was further submitted that the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court that the petitioner himself had driven his daughter-in-law out is borne out from his own statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It was argued that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, being based on proper appreciation of evidence, are not perverse. Even if another view is possible on the basis of the same material, the same cannot be a ground for interference either in criminal revision or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, it was contended that the impugned orders do not warrant any interference.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court.

6. Upon perusal of the complaint, it appears that the petitioner's daughter-in-law had left her matrimonial home in April, 2019 after the death of the petitioner's son in the year 2018. It is also admitted by the petitioner that his daughter-in-law, allegedly at the instigation of the respondent, had lodged a criminal complaint against him. The surrounding circumstances indicate that disputes had arisen between the petitioner and his daughter-in-law after the death of his son, which also resulted in criminal proceedings against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the possibility of false implication of the respondent by the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Therefore, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below.

7. Accordingly, the orders passed by the learned Trial as well as Revisional Court are upheld, and the present petition is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

May 6, 2026

Mukesh