Allahabad High Court

ARVIND CHAUDHARY ALIAS KALUAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA

Holding

The High Court held that the impugned order was lawful, not perverse, and therefore the criminal revision is dismissed.

Summary

Arvind Chaudhary (Kalua) filed a criminal revision under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. challenging a Judicial Magistrate’s order dismissing his complaint. He alleged that the Magistrate ignored material evidence, including his exoneration from an FIR containing serious IPC offences, and that the order was motivated by ulterior intent. The State, represented by an Additional Government Advocate, contended that the complaint and witness statements did not disclose any offence and that the Magistrate’s dismissal was proper. The High Court examined the record and found that the Magistrate had correctly observed the absence of cogent material to support a defamation claim and that the order was not perverse or illegal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the criminal revision, upholding the Magistrate’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether the Judicial Magistrate erred in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the ground of lack of material evidence
Whether the revision petition is maintainable in view of the findings of the trial court

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 202, 203
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 354, 452, 504, 506

Subjects

criminal revision
Section 203 CrPC
complaint dismissal
defamation
magistrate jurisdiction
procedural law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2911 of 2025

Arvind Chaudhary Alias Kalua
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Diwan Saifullah Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 45
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Revisionist Arvind Chaudhary Alias Kalua by means of
present Criminal Revision has approached this Court challenging
the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by Civil Judge
(Junior Division) F.T.C. Court No. 1/Judicial Magistrate,
Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred as Jurisdictional Magistrate) in
complaint Case No. 17833 of 2024 (Arvind Chaudhary @ Kalua
Vs. Omveer Singh and others), Police Station Kavinagar, District
Ghaziabad wherein the Jurisdictional Magistrate dismissed the
complaint of the revisionist u/s 203 Cr.P.C.

2. Aggrieved with that order the present criminal revision has
been filed on the ground that the Magistrate has committed error
while passing the impugned order. The impugned order has been
passed without considering the facts in right way with ulterior
motive and prayed for allowing the criminal revision and setting
aside the impugned order.

3. Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA appearing
on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.

4. Though notice issued to opposite party nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 has
been duly served but inspite of service of notice no one on their
behalf is present to oppose the present criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist submits that
CRLR No. 2911 of 2025
2

opposite party no. 2 had lodged an FIR against the revisionist and
his family members under sections 504, 506, 452, 323, 354, 307
IPC, Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh. It is further
submitted that in pursuance thereof, several attempts were made
by the police to arrest the revisionist but his neighbors prevented
him from accompanying them, due to which the revisionist
suffered humiliation and his reputation in society was seriously
tarnished. After conclusion of statutory investigation, the name of
revisionist was exonerated and section 307 IPC was also deleted.
The aforesaid fact were duly supported by the revisionist in his
statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. as well as by PW-1 and PW-2 in their
statements u/s 202 Cr.P.C., however the trial court failed to
consider the same and dismissed the complaint filed by the
revisionist. It is thus contended that the impugned order is liable
to be set aside.

6. Per contra learned AGA appearing on behalf of State-opposite
party no. 1 has vehemently opposed the present criminal revision
and submitted that a bare reading of complaint version along with
statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. does not disclose commission of any
offence. It is thus submitted that the trial court has rightly passed
the impugned order and the same warrants no interference by this
Court in exercise of its revsisional jurisdiction.

7. When confronted with above the learned counsel for
revisionist could not overcome the same.

8. Upon perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the Judicial
Magistrate has observed that no cogent material or evidence
regarding any defamation of revisionist had been brought on
record before the Court. The impugned order reflects due
consideration of the entire material available on record and
cannot be said to be mechanical in nature.

9. In view of aforesaid conspectus, I am of the view that no
interference with the impugned order is warranted in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction. The impugned has been passed in
CRLR No. 2911 of 2025
3

accordance with law and suffers from neither illegality nor
perversity.

10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is liable to be
dismissed and hereby dismissed.

(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)

May 6, 2026
Arti

Digitally signed by :-
ARTI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…