The Allahabad High Court has held that criminal proceedings should not be permitted to become a tool for personal vendetta and that courts must carefully examine whether allegations are being used to harass individuals for ulterior motives.
Setting aside an order summoning two accused in a gang-rape case, the Court observed that certain crucial circumstances creating serious doubts about the prosecution story had remained completely unanswered.
The Court remarked that,
“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.”
It further noted that the unexplained circumstances in the case “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.”
The order was passed by the Single Bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla in a criminal revision filed by Neetesh Singh and another.
In the instant matter, it challenged an order dated February 15, 2025, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, which had rejected a final report submitted by the police and summoned the revisionists as accused.
Opposite Party No. 2, had lodged allegations of gang rape against the revisionists.
Read also: CMO Has No Authority to Cancel Hospital Registration
The case arose from Case Crime No. 133 of 2018 registered at Lodha Police Station, Aligarh, under Sections 376-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the informant alleged that on January 28, 2018, while travelling to Aligarh, she was offered a lift by the accused persons, who were known to her husband.
She claimed that they diverted the vehicle near Parsera village, and then she raised an objection but the accused persons threatened her at gunpoint, forcibly dragged her out of the car, and committed gang rape in a mustard field before fleeing from the spot.
On hearing the informant’s scream, two persons passing by came to her. She disclosed the name and address of the accused persons.
In the police station, she told the incident to police but it was not entertained by the police. On 30.01.2018, she wrote a letter to Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh but that also went in vein.
Further, she filed an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh on 02.02.2018. After completion of investigation the Investigating Officer filed a final report against which the informant filed protest petition and the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order, which is under challenge in the instant matter.
Before the High Court, the revisionists argued that the allegations were fabricated and that the investigation had revealed circumstances suggesting false implication.
They pointed out that the complainant’s medical examination was conducted after a considerable delay and did not corroborate the allegation of rape.
They also referred to an alleged long-standing enmity between the revisionist no. 1 and one Dina alias Dinesh Kumar, contending that the informant had acted at his behest.
Examining the record, the High Court found that two significant issues had not been addressed either by the informant, the State, or the Magistrate while passing the summoning order.
Read also: Court Refuses to Ban ‘Karuppu’, Says Judges Are Not Above Criticism and Upholds Artistic Freedom
The first related to the alleged hostility between one of the revisionists and Dina alias Dinesh Kumar and the prosecutrix’s alleged connection with him.
The second concerned the informant’s choice of an unusual route to travel from her place of residence to Aligarh through Noida.
According to the Court, these aspects went to the root of the matter and required proper consideration.
The Court also took note of material collected during the investigation indicating that when the investigating officer dialled the contact number allegedly belonging to the victim, the call was received by the father of Dina alias Dinesh Kumar.
Describing this as a “very crucial point,” the Court held that it required a satisfactory explanation.
It further observed that the protest petition filed against the final report did not contain any new evidence and that affidavits of the alleged eyewitnesses had not been filed despite allegations that their statements were improperly recorded by the Investigating Officer.
Another important aspect considered by the Court concerned the Magistrate’s finding that the investigating officer had no authority to record a supplementary statement of a victim.
Disagreeing with that view, the High Court held that Paragraph 109 of the U.P. Police Regulations expressly permits recording of supplementary statements during investigation.
It clarified that such statements are intended to uncover the truth and cannot be treated as legally impermissible.
The Court interpretated the additional statement of the victim by saying that,
“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”.
Taking the view that the Magistrate’s order suffered from serious infirmities, the High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order summoning the accused.
The trial court was asked to revisit the matter and render a fresh decision after taking into account the observations recorded by the High Court.
Case: Neetesh Singh and Another vs State Of U.P. and Another
Case No: Criminal Revision No. – 2041 of 2025
Date of Order: 04.05.2026
Status: Allowed
