Allahabad High Court
SHEKHDIDAR ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The High Court held that the magistrate correctly treated the application as a complaint and that no investigation was required, leading to dismissal of the revision.
Summary
The revisionist, Shekhdidar Ali, filed a criminal revision challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, which had treated his application under Section 173(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code as a complaint rather than a State case. He argued that the dispute involved 200 grams of gold under a B.C. scheme and therefore warranted a formal investigation. The magistrate had found that the facts were fully known to the parties and no independent investigation was required. The High Court examined whether the magistrate erred in refusing to register the matter as a State case. Finding no illegality or procedural irregularity in the magistrate's order, the Court held that the revision lacked merit. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 173(4) of the CrPC concerning a dispute over gold should be registered as a complaint or as a State case requiring investigation.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(4)
Subjects
- criminal revision
- Section 173(4)
- complaint vs. FIR
- investigation requirement
- gold fraud
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1401 of 2026
Shekhdidar Ali
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Vikash Chandra Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated
16.12.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, in Misc.
Application No. 300 of 2025 (Shekhdidar Ali vs. Rajesh Kumar Soni and
others), under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., Police Station Kotwali, District
Jaunpur.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist filed an
application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., which has been registered as a
complaint. It is contended that investigation is required in the said matter
and, therefore, it ought to have been registered as a State case.
4. It is further submitted that the matter involves 200 grams of gold, which is
a valuable metal, and hence investigation is necessary. Learned counsel
submits that the revisionist is a technician who prepares jewellery in the
Sarafa Market and works there. One Rajesh Seth, son of Hori Lal Soni, has a
shop at the said place and carries on the business of running a B.C. scheme
of gold. The revisionist, being a simple person belonging to an ordinary
family, and in order to safeguard his future, became a member of a 200-gram
gold B.C. scheme run by Rajesh Seth on his assurance. He was enrolled as
member at serial no. 13.
5. At the time of initiation of the B.C., Rajesh Seth informed him that he was
required to pay instalments for 15 months equivalent to the value of the gold.
After completion of 15 months, when the revisionist approached Rajesh Seth
CRLR No. 1401 of 2026
2
and demanded his share under the B.C. scheme, neither was any amount
returned nor was the gold delivered. It is further alleged that the son of
Rajesh Seth abused him and extended threats to kill him.
6. All the aforesaid facts are within the knowledge of the revisionist and do
not require any independent investigation.
7. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced and perusal of the
record, this Court finds that there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in
the impugned order.
8. The criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
February 24, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…