# Vandana Gupta Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1152
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 808 of 2026
- **Bench:** Abdul Shahid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vandana-gupta-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54109
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 2 ILRA 1152
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Revision No. 808 of 2026

Vandana Gupta ....Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether the order allowing application under Section 233(2) B.N.S.S. for joint trial, passed at a belated
stage of proceedings, was legally sustainable;
(ii) Whether concealment of material facts and stage of proceedings could vitiate the order directing joint trial
.
Headnotes
Criminal Procedure - Joint trial - Section 233(2) B.N.S.S. - Stage of proceedings - Exercise of
discretion:

Held: The decision to conduct joint or separate trial is a matter of judicial discretion - ordinarily ought to be
taken at the initial stage of proceedings - Where the trial in one case is at the verge of conclusion and the
other case has not even commenced- directing a joint trial at such belated stage- improper and not in the
interest of justice. [Paras 6, 15]

Criminal Procedure - Joint trial - Prejudice and delay - Consideration:

Held: The paramount considerations for directing joint trial-whether such course would cause prejudice to the
accused or result in delay or wastage of judicial time - Where substantial evidence has already been
recorded-joint trial would lead to delay- such direction is liable to be set aside. [Paras 6, 8, 15]

Criminal Procedure - Suppression of material facts - Effect:

Held: Suppression of material facts-including earlier proceedings and orders relating to joint trial-vitiates the
subsequent order obtained on such concealment - a litigant who does not approach the Court with clean
hands -not entitled to relief. [Paras 4-5, 15]

Criminal Procedure - Trial - Conduct of parties - Delay:
Held: Conduct of parties-not taking effective steps for expeditious disposal of proceedings-including failure to
pursue mediation or deposit required amounts- relevant - Where such conduct results in delay and
prolongation of trial-direction for joint trial would further prejudice proceedings. [Paras 10, 15]

Criminal Procedure - Fair trial - Article 21 - Speedy trial:
Held: Right to speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution - Any direction which results in
undue delay in conclusion of trial- particularly when evidence is almost complete- would amount to denial of
justice. [Para 8]

Criminal Procedure - Revision - Interference:
2 All. Vandana Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1153
Held: In view of concealment of material facts-stage of proceedings and likelihood of delay and prejudice-the
impugned order allowing joint trial -unsustainable and liable to be set aside. [Paras 15-16]

Revision allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 - relied on; Nasib Singh v.
State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 89 - relied on;
Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 1113 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961;
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Joint trial; Separate trial; Suppression of facts; Clean hands; Delay in trial; Prejudice; Speedy trial; Judicial
discretion; Criminal revision.

Case Arising From
Order dated 19.01.2026 passed by Judicial Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur in Case No. 132791 of 2021 (State vs.
Satish Sudarshan Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2021.

Appearance for Parties
For the AppellantsSri Vineet Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Sri Ranu Tiwari; Learned A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ranu Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Under challenge is the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Judicial MagistrateThird, Gorakhpur in Case No.132791 of 2021 (State Vs. Satish Sudarshan Gupta and Others)
arising out of Case Crime No.55 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 406 IPC and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gorakhpur.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the impugned order dated 19.01.2026
passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur is wholly arbitrary, unsustainable in law, and has
been passed without due application of judicial mind and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. He
further submits that the learned trial court committed a patent error of law in allowing the
application moved under Section 233(2) of the B.N.S.S. without taking into consideration the
material fact that opposite party no. 2 did not approach the court with clean hands while filing the
application dated 14.08.2025 under Section 233(2) B.N.S.S.

4. It is next submitted that the factum of filing a previous application seeking a joint trial, as
well as the passing of the order dated 01.07.2025 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gorakhpur, in Case No. 132791 of 2021, whereby such application was dealt with, was deliberately
suppressed. As a result, it is manifest that the subsequent application dated 14.08.2025 under
Section 233(2) B.N.S.S. was not maintainable.
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 114, wherein
it has been held that a litigant who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be
heard on the merits of his grievance. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order dated
19.01.2026 stands vitiated in law on account of concealment and suppression of material facts.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 89, wherein it was held that the
decision to conduct a joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at the outset of the proceedings
and for cogent reasons. The paramount consideration in such decision-making is whether a joint
trial would cause prejudice to the accused or result in delay or wastage of judicial time. It was
further held that even where the conditions under Sections 219 to 223 Cr.P.C. are satisfied,
ordering a joint trial remains a matter of judicial discretion.

7. It is further contended that the learned trial court failed to assess the conduct of the private
opposite parties, who appear to be interested only in lingering on the outcome of the pending
criminal trial arising out of the First Information Report dated 15.08.2021. It is contended that on
the date of filing of the application dated 14.08.2025 under Section 233(2) B.N.S.S., only one
prosecution witness remained to be examined.

8. It is next submitted that the learned trial court did not adequately consider that holding a
joint trial at such a belated stage would cause serious prejudice and irreparable loss to the
revisionist. It is urged that, due to the conduct of the private opposite parties, the evidence in
Complaint Case No. 31475 of 2021 has not been concluded till date and, therefore, could not be
read against the revisionist. Consequently, the impugned order is alleged to be violative of Article
21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, and that the inordinate
delay amounts to denial of justice.

9. By circumventing the order dated 26.08.2025 passed in Application under Section 528
BNSS No. 21730 of 2025, the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 came to be passed by the learned
trial court, which is wholly unsustainable in law. The same has resulted in a miscarriage of justice
and wastage of judicial time, particularly when substantial prosecution evidence has already been
recorded in the criminal trial arising out of the First Information Report dated 15.08.2021, which is
at the verge of conclusion. It is submitted that there is every likelihood of recording conviction of
the opposite parties in view of the ample evidence available on record.

10. Learned trial court has also failed to consider the material fact that the mediation process,
as directed by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10957 of 2022 vide order
dated 28.07.2022 and in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18204 of 2023 vide order dated
23.05.2023, respectively, could not be undertaken. The said mediation did not progress due to nondeposit of the requisite amount of Rs. 30,000/- each at the instance of the private opposite parties,
which indicates a lack of bona fide effort towards expeditious resolution of the dispute.

11. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has contended that there is no illegality in the
impugned order and that the trial of both cases ought to be conducted jointly.
2 All. Vandana Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1155

12. The marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 as per Hindu rites
and customs on 08.03.2018. The FIR was lodged on 15.08.2021. After a detailed investigation, the
charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. The trial in the said case is at its final stage,
whereas Criminal Complaint Case No. 31475 of 2021 was filed by the revisionist against the
opposite parties under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As per the order-sheet of Complaint
Case No. 31475 of 2021, the trial therein is yet to commence.

13. It is further submitted that the opposite parties concealed the material fact before the
concerned Judicial Magistrate, prior to passing of the impugned order dated 19.01.2026, that an
application for transfer had been filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur. The
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, vide order dated 01.07.2025, observed that at the
stage of allowing the transfer application, it could not be concluded that both matters would be tried
jointly and that both cases were merely transferred to a single court without any finding regarding
joint trial. Thereafter, the accused persons filed the application under Section 233(2) B.N.S.S.
before the Judicial Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur, on 14.08.2025, without disclosing the said order
dated 01.07.2025.

14. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 INSC 1113, wherein,
in paragraph 16, it was held that the principles governing the conduct of joint or separate trials have
been elaborately dealt with by the Court in Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab (supra). The relevant
paragraphs have been relied upon, particularly paragraph 51.2 & 51.3 are as follows:

"While applying the principles enunciated in Sections 218-223 on conducting joint and
separate trials, the trial court should apply a two-pronged test, namely, (i) whether conducting a
joint/separate trial will prejudice the defence of the accused; and/or (ii) whether conducting a
joint/separate trial would cause judicial delay.

The possibility of conducting a joint trial will have to be determined at the beginning of
the trial and not after the trial based on the result of the trial. The appellate court may determine the
validity of the argument that there ought to have been a separate/joint trial only based on whether
the trial had prejudiced the right of accused or the prosecutrix."

15. In view of the above, it is evident that complete facts were not placed before the learned
trial court by the opposite parties. Case No. 132791 of 2021 (State v. Satish Sudarshan Gupta and
Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2021, is at a final stage where the evidence is almost
complete, whereas the complaint case is yet to commence. The opposite parties have not taken
effective steps for expeditious disposal of the complaint case. Though the matter was referred to
mediation, neither was the amount directed by this Court deposited nor were any effective steps
taken for a speedy trial. A joint trial at this stage would further delay the proceedings and would not
be in the interest of justice.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur, in Case No. 132791 of 2021 (State v. Satish Sudarshan Gupta
and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 504, 406
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District
Gorakhpur is hereby set aside.

17. The criminal revision is allowed accordingly.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1156
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Revision No. 811 of 2026

Surendra Kumar Sharma & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether the order summoning the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of evidence recorded
during trial was sustainable in law;
(ii) Whether vague and general allegations, in absence of strong and cogent evidence, justified exercise of
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Headnotes
Criminal Procedure - Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Summoning of additional accused - Nature of
power:

Held: Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.-discretionary and extraordinary- to be exercised sparingly - The Court
must be satisfied-strong and cogent evidence has come on record-if unrebutted, would reasonably lead to
conviction - Mere existence of prima facie case is not sufficient. [Paras 29-30]

Criminal Procedure - Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Basis of exercise - Evidence during trial:

Held: The expression "evidence" under Section 319 Cr.P.C.-refers to evidence adduced during trial- not
material collected during investigation - Summoning of additional accused must be based on such evidencedegree of satisfaction required is higher than that at the stage of framing of charge. [Paras 24-25]

Criminal Procedure - Summoning - Vague and general allegations - Insufficiency:

Held: Where allegations against proposed accused-general and vague- without specific role or overt act-such
evidence does not satisfy the threshold required for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Mere repetition of
allegations without substantive corroboration is insufficient. [Paras 25, 34]

Criminal Procedure - Matrimonial offence - Over-implication of relatives:

Held: In cases arising out of matrimonial disputes- tendency to implicate entire family - In absence of
specific allegations and credible evidence-summoning relatives of principal accused- abuse of process of law.
[Paras 26-28]