# Swaraj Singh Patil v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 879 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-30 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 4092 of 2026 - **Bench:** Gautam Chowdhary - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/swaraj-singh-patil-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54414 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 4 All. Swaraj Singh Patil Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 879 15. The cognizance order has been passed without considering the facts, circumstances and position of law as the charge-sheet has been submitted for a non-cognizable offence without any prior order for investigation of the Magistrate concerned having jurisdiction. 16. It is settled position of law that as illustrated in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 wherein 7 categories of cases have been formulated for quashing of FIR/complaint with regard to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. In the present case, the trial court has committed grave error in taking cognizance in the offence related to non-cognizable offence without any prior permission of Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. 17. Hence, the present application is liable to be allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 21 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 153 of 2023, under Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, Police Station Jigna, District Mirzapur as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 03.01.2024, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Mirzapur are liable to be quashed. 18. The present Application U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 879 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. Application U/S 482. No. 4092 of 2026 Swaraj Singh Patil ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Issue for consideration In this case, the wife filed a maintenance application u/s 125 Cr.PC claiming Rs. 1,00,000 per month and subsequently sought amendment of the claim to Rs. 1,50,000 per month, which was allowed by the Family Court. The husband challenged the amendment order u/s 528 BNSS contending that the Code of Criminal Procedure contains no provision permitting amendment of the maintenance amount claimed in a pending section 125 proceeding. Headnotes A. Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 125-Exercise of Power-Amendment application in maintenance case-Absence of statutory sanction-Family Court exceeded jurisdiction in permitting amendment of maintenance amount claimed-Impugned order quashed.(Para 7 to 10) Held The court held that although maintenance provision u/s125 to 128 Cr.PC are beneficial in nature and intended to protect dependants from destitution, there is admittedly no provision under the Code permitting 880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES amendment of the amount claimed in a pending application u/s 125 CrPC. Therefore, the Family Court acted without jurisdiction in allowing the amendment application seeking enhancement of the maintenance claim1,00,000 per month to Rs. 1,50,000 per month. The impugned order dated 08.12.2025 was consequently set aside. The court further directed expeditious disposal of the interim maintenance application in accordance with the principles laid down in Rajnesh Vs. Neha. (E-6) Case law Cited Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324-referred to. List of Acts Criminal Procedure Code,1973 List of Keywords Maintenance, Amendment application, Enhancement of Maintenance Claim, Family Court jurisdiction, Beneficial legislation, Jurisdictional error. Case Arising from CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No.- 4092 OF 2026 Swaraj Singh Patil Vs. State of U.P. And Another From the judgment and order dated 30.04.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad. Appearances for Parties Adv. for Applicant(s) Mohd. Afzal Adv. for Opposite Party(s) G.A. (Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.) 1. Heard Shri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed against the order dated 08.12.2025 passed on the amendment application No. 21-Aa filed by the opposite party no. 2 in pending maintenance case, bearing Criminal Misc. Case No. 950 of 2024 (Smt. Akansha Vs. Swaraj Singh Patil), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 02, Firozabad, whereby while rejecting the objections filed by the applicant the said amendment application has been allowed and the opposite party No. 2 has been permitted to amend the amount of interim maintenance as claimed in the said amendment application filed behalf of the opposite party No. 2 and directed the necessary amendments to be carried out within three days. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the private opposite party No. 2 had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per month on 19.06.2024, upon which the applicant filed his written statement to the said application. It is further contended that on 08.05.2025 the opposite party No. 2 filed an amendment application for amending the amount of monthly maintenance claimed from Rs. 1,00,000/- as mentioned in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, further, 4 All. Swaraj Singh Patil Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 881 praying for amendment to the extent that the salary of the applicant shall be amended as Rs. 1,20,00,000/-, which has been allowed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Firozabad by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there is no provisions provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment to be allowed in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., therefore, the order impugned is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the above submissions made on behalf of applicant, but he submits that the Judge, Family Court/Magistrate has ample power under the provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C. to grant monthly maintenance allowance to the wife, children, father or mother on such monthly rate as the Magistrate/court deems fit, therefore, nomenclature of the application filed would not matter as the application for amendment of the amount of maintenance claimed was filed on account of changed circumstances of increase in price structure and on the basis of which it was urged that maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- was highly inadequate to meet needs of opposite parties No. 2. It is further argued that nomenclature of the application would not be of much relevance and the Magistrate has only directed that the amount so claimed, i.e., Rs. 1,00,000/- may be amended to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month but no direction for its payment has yet been issued, therefore, it is contended that filing of present application on behalf of the application has no merit and is deserved to be dismissed. 6. I have heard rival submissions advanced by both the parties. 7. Provisions of sections 125, 126, 127, 128 of Cr.P.C. are beneficiary in nature in order to ensure that wives, children and parent, who are unable to maintain themselves, may be maintained properly and they are not neglected by such person against whom maintenance is being claimed and who are otherwise legally liable to maintain them. Thus, the aforesaid provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure are beneficial legislation intended to secure the interest of the persons mentioned therein so as to prevent the vagaries of destitution and to ensure that they live a descent and honurable life. 8. There is no dispute between the parties that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for amending the amount claimed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the application, which has been moved by the opposite parties No. 2 was for amendment to be incorporated in the amount of maintenance claimed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. which application has been allowed and such amendment has been permitted to be incorporated. 9. In view of the above admitted position, since the law does not permit for any amendment application to be allowed for amending the amount claimed in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., the order impugned dated 08.12.2025 passed on the amendment application allowing it, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby set aside. 10. Accordingly, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is finally disposed of with the direction that the learned Principal Judge shall make its endeavour to decide the interim maintenance application as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law in view of the settled 882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 882 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 03.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Application U/S 482. No. 4460 of 2022 Alongwith Application U/S 482. No. 3270 of 2022 Rajat Saxena & Anr. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Issue for consideration A criminal litigation arising out of family-cum-property dispute. The applicants approached the High court u/s 482 CrPC seeking to quash a trial court's summoning order. Headnotes A. Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 420-Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 482-Quashing of criminal proceedings-Cheating -essential ingredients-Absence of fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction-Offence not made out-Commercial and civil disputes cloaked with a criminal texture-Mere repayment of loan installments or outstanding bank dues by a third party (father) does not alter or divest the legal status of the registered property owner or mortgagor-Bank Manager accepting outstanding dues to secure bank interest and returning title deeds to the true mortgagor does not commit any criminal offence or conspiracy-Summoning order quashed.(Para 31 to 33) Held The Court held that a civil dispute over property partition cannot be given a criminal cloak to exert undue pressure. It ruled that a third party's voluntary repayment of a bank loan does not alter or divest the legal ownership rights of the true mortgagor. Furthermore, a bank manager commits no criminal offence by accepting dues and returning title deeds to the registered owner, making the Magistrate's mechanical summoning order a clear abuse of process. (E-6) Case law Cited Mitesh Kumar J.Sha Vs State of Karnataka, (2022) 14 SCC 572, Dinesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. 2024 SCC Online SC 34 , Indian Oil Corpn Vs NEPC India Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 736], G.Sagar Suri Vs State of U.P. [2000) 2,Randheer Singh Vs State of U.P. [(2021) 14 SCC 626], Dinesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. : (2024) 11 SCC 758, Mala Choudhary Vs State of Telangana , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1474, Rikhab Birani Vs State of U.P. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823-referred to. List of Acts Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. List of Keywords