Allahabad High Court
ARJUN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SANJIV KUMAR
Holding
The order dismissing the application was set aside, and the revision was allowed, directing a fresh hearing.
Summary
Arjun Singh filed a criminal revision challenging the order dated 08.07.2026 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, which dismissed his application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS on the premise that he was not interested in pursuing it. The revisionist contended that the magistrate’s finding was unsupported, as the certified order‑sheet showed that his counsel was present at almost all hearings. The State conceded the presence of counsel but argued otherwise. The High Court examined the record, noted the absence of any report submission and the lack of a proper hearing, and concluded that the magistrate had erred in concluding lack of interest without affording a hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to reconsider the application afresh, granting the revisionist an opportunity to be heard.
Issues considered
- Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in dismissing the application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS on the ground of alleged lack of interest of the applicant.
- Whether the magistrate was required to afford a further opportunity of hearing before dismissing the application.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 173(4)
Subjects
- criminal revision
- Section 173(4)
- procedural fairness
- opportunity of hearing
- magistrate's order
- dismissal of application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5551 of 2026
Arjun Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bandana Singh, Ved Prakash Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned
A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 08.07.2026
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in Misc. Case No.
4179 of 2025 (Arjun Singh vs. Alok Rathor and Others). By the impugned
order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the
revisionist under Section 173(4) of the BNSS on the ground that the
revisionist was not appearing and it appeared that he did not wish to press
the application.
3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that the above finding of the
learned Trial Court is off the record. He has filed a certified copy of the
order-sheet and submits that a perusal of the order-sheet shows that on each
and every date, the Counsel for the revisionist/applicant was present in the
Court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has committed illegality or
irregularity in passing the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer, but he fairly conceded that the
order-sheet reveals that learned counsel for the applicant remained present
before the Court on almost all the dates of hearing.
5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and
upon perusal of the record, it appears that the impugned order was passed on
the ground that the applicant/revisionist was not interested in pressing the
application and, on the last date, a last opportunity was also given to the
CRLR No. 5551 of 2026
2
applicant/revisionist. A perusal of the certified copy of the order-sheet
reveals that learned counsel for the applicant remained present on almost all
the occasions before the court and, on 05.06.2026, a report was called for
from the senior officers of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5, and the next date
fixed was 24.06.2026. On 24.06.2026, the Presiding Officer of the court was
on leave, and the next date fixed was 08.07.2026. On 08.07.2026, the
impugned order was passed without any mention as to whether the report
called for was submitted before the court or not. Therefore, the finding of the
learned Magistrate that the applicant was not interested in pressing the
application is not substantiated by the evidence on record. Hence, the
learned Magistrate ought to have given another opportunity to the applicant
to press the application. The impugned order was passed hurriedly without
giving sufficient opportunity to the applicant.
6. In view of the above, the present revision is allowed. The impugned order
dated 08.07.2026 is hereby set aside, and the Trial Court is directed to
decide the aforesaid application afresh and pass an appropriate order, in
accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to learned
counsel for the revisionist.
September 23, 2026
Amit
(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…