Allahabad High Court

SHIVKUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA

Holding

The complaint is vague and pertains to a civil dispute; consequently, the magistrate’s order rejecting it is upheld.

Summary

Shivkumar filed a criminal revision under Section 226 of the CrPC challenging the order of a Judicial Magistrate who had dismissed his complaint alleging abuse and threats by parties 2 and 3. The complaint stemmed from a civil dispute over a conditional sale deed and repayment of money, where the opposite parties allegedly refused to return the land and threatened him. The magistrate rejected the complaint, finding it vague and essentially civil in nature. On revision, the High Court examined the statements recorded under Sections 223 and 225 CrPC and noted the absence of any specific date or time for the alleged incident, concluding that the allegation was vague and the matter was a civil dispute not amenable to criminal proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, the Court held there was no illegality in the magistrate’s order and dismissed the revision at the admission stage.

Issues considered

Whether a complaint alleging abuse and threat, without a specific date or time, is maintainable under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Whether a civil dispute over property can be given criminal colour and proceeded under criminal law.
Whether the order of the Judicial Magistrate rejecting the complaint is legally sound.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 223, 225, 226

Subjects

criminal revision
Section 226 CrPC
civil dispute
criminal colour
abuse and threat
conditional sale deed
jurisdiction
Section 223 CrPC
Section 225 CrPC
Pepsi Foods case

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2751 of 2026

Shivkumar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Hari Nath Chaubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material on record.

The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside/quash
the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 in Complaint Case No.11483 of 202,
under Section 226 B.N.S.S. (Shivkumar vs. Dhirendra Trivedi and others) by
which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, has rejected the
complaint case filed by the revisionist.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case a
complaint was filed by the revisionist against the opposite party no.2 & 3 for
abuse and threatening in which statement of complainant u/s 223 and other
witnesses u/s 225 B.N.S.S. were recorded. Further submitted that the
revisionist executed a conditional sale deed in favour of opposite party no.2
& 3 when he was in need of money regarding his treatment. Later on, when
he was ready to make repayment of amount to opposite party no.2 & 3, they
denied to accept the money and to return the land subject to conditional sale
deed regarding which he filed a civil suit before the learned civil court which
is still pending and the opposite parties are not appearing even before the
learned civil court. Further submitted that when he asked opposite party no.2
& 3 to return the land after accepting the money, they abused him and also
threatened to kill him that was the reason he filed the present complaint. The
incident took place before the villagers those were examined before the
learned court u/s 225 B.N.S.S. and then supported the version made by the
complainant even though the learned trial court has not considered the
CRLR No. 2751 of 2026
2

material on record but passed the order in question illegally, therefore,
request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court dated 20.01.2026
u/s 226 B.N.S.S. and allow the revision.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this
case no any date and time has been mentioned even in the complaint by the
complainant regarding occurrence with him by opposite party no.2 & 3.
When he was examined u/s 223 B.N.S.S. before the learned court even
though he did not disclose any such time and likewise the witnesses
Mahaveer & Babu have also not disclosed this fact even when their
statements were recorded u/s 225 B.N.S.S. before the learned trial court. He
also contends that the dispute between complainant and opposite party no.2
& 3 is purely of civil nature which cannot be given criminal color.
Regarding the dispute a civil litigation is going on between the parties and
remedy available to the revisionist is from the learned civil court. There is no
any error in the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned trial court.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record,
the contents of complaint, the statements of complainant and other witnesses
as recorded u/s 223 & 225 B.N.S.S. and the order passed by learned trial
court dated 20.02.2026 under Section 226 B.N.S.S., it transpires that there is
dispute between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 & 3 regarding
property in relation to which conditional sale deed was executed by the
revisionist in favour of opposite party no.2 & 3 and they refused to accept
money and return the property regarding which he filed a civil suit which is
still pending before the learned civil court. In the complaint though there is
allegation that the opposite party no.2 & 3 abused and threatened him to kill
but there is no any specific date or time when incident is said to have taken
place. Even in the statement u/s 223 B.N.S.S. the complainant has not
disclosed such date and time. Likewise, the statement of PW-1 Mahaveer &
PW-2 Babu were recorded u/s 225 B.N.S.S. but they have not disclosed any
such date and time regarding the incident to have taken place with the
revisionists by the opposite party no.2 & 3. In this way, the allegation made
by the complainant appears to be vague and the dispute between both the
parties is purely of civil nature regarding which there is civil litigation
pending. The civil dispute cannot be permitted to be given criminal color.
The learned trial court has considered all these facts while passing the order
in question dated 20.01.2026 and also observations made by the Hon'ble
CRLR No. 2751 of 2026
3

Supreme Court in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & others vs. Special
Judicial Magistrate & others AIR 1998 SC 128 and then passed the order
in question. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order
passed by the learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is
liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

May 5, 2026
Ashok Gupta
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…