GHANSHYAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1413 of 2026

Ghanshyam
                                                              .....Revisionist(s)
                                    Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                         :   Ganesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                      :   G.A.

Court No. - 87
                      HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned
order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-I, Basti in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1805 of 2023 (Ghanshyam
Vs. Rajit Ram and others) U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Paikoliya,
District Basti whereby the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist
has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist filed
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against opposite party no. 2/Ex
Village Pradhan and opposite party no. 3/ Secretary Gram Panchayat, Gram
Sabha Baderiya Kunwar. All the allegations made in the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were supported by the enquiry report. It is alleged in
the complaint that the revisionist is a resident of Sakin-Baderiya Kunwar
Post-Thanha Khas, Tehsil-Haraiya, Police Station Paikoliya, District Basti
and is an aggrieved person. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are government
servants.

4. It is further alleged that the previous Pradhan, Rajiram during his tenure in
2020–21, approved the construction of a CC road measuring 80 meters in
length and three meters in width. The former Gram Pradhan, in collusion
with opposite party nos. 2 and 3 withdrew an amount of Rs. 3,24,000/-.
However, his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was not registered.
Hence, he preferred the present criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that a joint report
was submitted by the J.E. and the Regional Incharge stating that
Chandrabhan Sharma had made a complaint alleging that no CC road had
been constructed. However, the former Gram Pradhan produced evidence to
show that the CC road had indeed been constructed. The officials further
stated that the matter was beyond their jurisdiction to enquire into and,
                                                                                               CRLR No. 1413 of 2026
                                                                     2

                                    therefore, recommended further action.

                                    6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that an order dated 12.10.2022
                                    was passed directing an enquiry and submission of a report. He further
                                    submitted that the report of the Block Development Officer stated that the
                                    CC road had not been constructed, whereas such investigation was not
                                    within their purview.

                                    7. Learned A.G.A. contended that although the revisionist filed an
                                    application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., he had no locus standi to do so. It
                                    was further submitted that the learned trial court passed a proper and
                                    justified order and, therefore, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

                                    8. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned trial court
                                    specifically held that if there was any irregularity, no proper enquiry had
                                    been conducted. The matter was beyond their jurisdiction and purview;
                                    however, they recommended further enquiry. In view thereof, if there has
                                    been any misappropriation of public funds, the same has to be decided by the
                                    competent authority, as the application of the revisionist/complainant was
                                    considered at the appropriate level and a recommendation for investigation
                                    was made. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the
                                    revisionist/complainant was in the nature of a private complaint, and the
                                    competent government authorities had taken cognizance of the matter and
                                    recommended further investigation.

                                    9. In view of the above, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the
                                    impugned order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is,
                                    accordingly, dismissed.



                                    February 25, 2026
                                    M. Tarik
                                                                                                (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad