# Damini v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 15 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-09 - **Case number:** Application U/S 529 BNSS. No. 4251 of 2025 - **Bench:** Abdul Shahid - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/damini-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54350 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 4 All. Damini Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 15 as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (3):Provided that further investigation during the trial may be conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same shall be completed within a period of ninety days which may be extended with the permission of the Court." 13. By fine scrutiny of the provisions of Section 193(9) BNSS, two things are apparently mentioned which are as under: (i) further investigation during the trial ... (ii) permission of the court trying the case... The distinction of the provisions as mentioned under Section 193(9) of BNSS is crystal clear that the court which is empowered for granting permission to concerned Investigating Officer for conducting further investigation is the court who took the cognizance of offence and is in way to try the matter. The wording mentioned in (ii) as mentioned above that the court 'trying the case' is not qualifying the above mentioned wording provided in the provisions 'during the trial' and as such the distinction between 'trying the case' and 'during the trial' is one and the same and the stand taken up by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 14. In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is the trite law that irregularity of the procedure will not vitiate the entire commencement of the matter which is in shape of Case no. 6998 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime no. 419 of 2024 and as such charge sheet dated 14.8.2025 preferred in Case Crime no. 491 of 2024 specifically in respect of the applicants as well as order dated 8.9.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi specifically in case of the applicants are hereby set aside. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands allowed accordingly. 15. However, this order will not preclude the concerned Investigating Officer for taking fresh action permissible as per law. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 15 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. Application U/S 529 BNSS. No. 4251 of 2025 Damini ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Issue for Consideration 16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Matter pertains to whether the Gram Nyayalaya has the jurisdiction to entertain, adjudicate, and execute proceedings relating to maintenance of wife, children, and parents under the provisions corresponding to ss. 144 to 147 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, or whether such jurisdiction exclusively vests with the Family Court under Family Courts Act, 1984. Headnotes Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - ss. 147 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - s. 7 - Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 - s. 12 - Maintenance petition - Execution of maintenance order - Jurisdiction of Gram Nyayalaya - Scope - The instant matter arose from an application filed u/s 529 of BNSS, 2023, seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of an execution petition pending before the Gram Nyayalaya, Karhal, Mainpuri - The applicant had earlier instituted proceedings u/s 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance, which were decided in her favour by competent court - Subsequently, the applicant initiated execution proceedings u/s 147 of BNSS, 2023, for enforcement of maintenance order - As the execution proceedings remained pending, the applicant approached the High Court seeking appropriate directions - The issue before the High Court was whether the Gram Nyayalaya has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide proceedings relating to execution of maintenance orders in view of provisions contained under Family Courts Act, 1984 and Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008. (E-13) Held:. The Gram Nyayalaya has jurisdiction to try and decide applications and cases relating to the maintenance of wives, children, and parents under Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (ss. 125 to 128), as well as the corresponding provisions under Chapter X of B.N.S.S., 2023 (ss. 144 to 147) - The Nyayadhikari of the Gram Nyayalaya is directed to decide the pending Execution Petition No. 25 of 2024 (Damini v. Pankaj Sharma), u/s 147 of B.N.S.S., 2023, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months - Accordingly, the application disposed of. [Paras 8 to 11] (E-!3) Case Law Cited Nil List of Acts Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Family Courts Act, 1984; Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 List of Keywords Application u/s 529 BNSS; s. 125 Cr.P.C.; s. 147 BNSS; Jurisdiction; s. 7 of Family Courts Act, 1984; s. 12 Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008; Criminal Jurisdiction; Cognizance; Complaint; Police Report; Maintenance of wife; Maintenance of children; Maintenance of parents; Chapter IX Cr.P.C.; Chapter X BNSS; Part II of First Schedule of Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008; Pending Execution Petition; Nyayadhikari of Gram Nyayalaya; Expeditious as possible; Accordance with law; Requsite jurisdiction; Disposed of. Case Arising From ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Application u/s 529 BNSS No. - 4251 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalay, Mainpuri in Maintenance Petition No. 217 of 2018. Appearances for Parties Adv. for the Applicant(s): Sanjay Kumar Yadav Adv. for the Opposite Party(s): G.A. 4 All. Damini Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 17 (Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The present application has been filed with a prayer to direct the learned Gram Nyayalayas, Karhal, Mainpuri, to decide the proceedings of Petition No. 25 of 2024 (Damini versus Pankaj Sharma), under Section 147 of the B.N.S.S., Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, expeditiously, within a stipulated period. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Petition No. 217 of 2018 (Damini versus Pankaj Sharma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was filed and the same was decided by Sri Rajeev Kumar Pal, Nyayadhikari, on 30.11.2024. Thereafter, the applicant filed Execution Petition No. 25 of 2024 (Damini versus Pankaj Sharma) under Section 147 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, before the same court, wherein the applicant has prayed that the execution petition be decided as expeditiously as possible. 4. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 defines the jurisdiction as follows: 7. Jurisdiction.(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall? (a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and (b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Explanation.- The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely: (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage; (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person; (c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them; (d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstance arising out of a marital relationship; (e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person; 18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance; (g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise? (a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and (b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment." 5. Section 12 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, is quoted hereinbelow: "Criminal Jurisdiction.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (corresponding B.N.S.S., 2023) or any other law for the time being in force, the Gram Nyayalaya may take cognizance of an offence on a complaint or on a police report and shall? (a) try all offences specified in Part I of the First Schedule; and (b) try all offences and grant relief, if any, specified under the enactments included in Part II of that Schedule. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Gram Nyayalaya shall also try all such offences or grant such relief under the State Acts which may be notified by the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 14." 6. Part II of the First Schedule, as per Sections 12 and 14 of the Act, 2008 (supra), includes clause (v), which pertains to orders for maintenance of wives, children, and parents under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (corresponding to the B.N.S.S., 2023). 7. There are two legislations which have provided the cases relating to the maintenance of wives, children and parents. As per section 7 of Family Court Act, 1984 as well as by section 12 of Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 in part II of the First Schedule. Part II is as follows: "PART II OFFENCES AND RELIEF UNDER THE OTHER CENTRAL ACTS (i) any offence constituted by an act in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 20 of the Cattle-trespass Act, 1871(1 of 1871); (ii) the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936); (iii) the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948); (iv) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of 1955); (v) order for maintenance of wives, children and parents under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (vi) the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (19 of 1976); (vii) the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (25 of 1976); (viii) the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)." 8. Hence, the Gram Nyayalaya has jurisdiction to try and decide applications and cases relating to the maintenance of wives, children, and parents under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 125 to 128), as well as the corresponding provisions under Chapter X of the B.N.S.S., 2023 (Sections 144 to 147). 9. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law and statutory framework, the Gram Nyayalaya has the requisite jurisdiction to decide the aforesaid pending petition. 4 All. Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 19 10. The Nyayadhikari of the Gram Nyayalaya is directed to decide the pending Execution Petition No. 25 of 2024 (Damini versus Pankaj Sharma), under Section 147 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. 11. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present application under Section 529 of the B.N.S.S. is hereby disposed of. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 19 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. THE HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J. Criminal Appeal U/S 413 BNSS No. 158 of 2026 Ram Kumar ...Appellants Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondent Issue for consideration Regarding inconsistent testimony of victim in acquittal order, qcquitting the accused u/s 376 (2) (n) IPC. Headnotes Indian Penal Code-376 (2) (n)- Trial Court acquitted the accused-impugned-Appeal- glaring inconsistencies in the statements of Prosecution witnesses regarding date, time and manner in which the incident happened- PW-1-victim-provided conflicting dates for the incident and gave contradictory statements regarding her Medical Examination-statement u/s 164-that medical examination was never conducted- despite records and her own examination-in-chief which had stated otherwise- allegation of repeated rape - no such mention was made in the tehrir- PW2-father of the victim-contradicted the victim on almost every major detail-impugned order does not warrant any interference-Appeal dismissed. (E-9) List of Acts Indian Penal Code, 1860 List of Keywords Internal examination; presumption of innocence; perversity; glaring inconsistencies. Appearances of parties Counsel for Appellant (s) : Counsel for Appellant(s) : Neelabh Srivastava, Vijai Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. (Delivered by Hon'ble Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J.) 1. Heard Sri Neelabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.