VIKRAM BANSFORversusState of UP AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5651 of 2024

Vikram Bansfor
                                                         .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State Of Up And 3 Others
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Kusum Lata
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.,  Pramod    Narayan            Yadav,
                                Yogendra Kumar Yadav

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

1. Heard Mr. Ram Krishna Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Kusum
Lata, learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist, Mr. R.C.
Srivastava, learned AGA appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 1, Mr.
Yogendra Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 and perused the record.

2. Revisionist Vikram Bansfor has approached this Court by means of
present Criminal Revision challenging the validity of impugned order
dated 06.08.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Mau (hereinafter
referred as Jurisdictional Magistrate) in Complaint No. 0042 of 2022
(Vikram Bansfor Vs. Vidhichand and others) Police Station Kotwali
Ghosi, District Mau wherein the trial court rejected the complaint of
revisionist invoking its power under section 203 Cr.P.C.

3. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the present criminal revision has
been filed on the ground that the impugned order has been passed without
considering the matter brought on record by the revisionist and merely on
the basis of police report. The trial court has taken wrong conclusion
while passing the impugned order the court did not consider the complaint
version as well as statement u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It is thus contended
that the impugned order is illegal, unjust and unsustainable in the eye of
law and is liable to be set aside by this Court.

4. Learned counsel for revisionist further submits that the trial court has
                                                        CRLR No. 5651 of 2024
                               2


recorded its reason that the complainant failed to produce any
corroborative evidence in support of the complaint version and the
statements recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., however the court
itself never directed or afforded any opportunity to the complainant to
produce such evidence, if the same was required for proper adjudication
of the matter. It is therefore, contended that the impugned order suffers
from material irregularity and is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State as well as
learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4
vehemently opposed the criminal revision and submitted that during the
preliminary inquiry conducted relating to the complaint, the local police
submitted its report against the complainant. The complainant is habitual
to initiate criminal proceeding against other co-villagers in which he has
consistently failed.

6. It is further contended that the trial court has rightly observed that the
complainant has not adduced any evidence in respect of his allegation
regarding looting of Mangalsutra. No description or particulars of the
alleged Magalsutra were brought on record before the Court. On the basis
of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, that trial court observed that the
story presented by the complainant is not believable. It is thus submitted
that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and
warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction.

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

8. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
statements recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. form part of the
preliminary inquiry conducted by the Magistrate for the purpose of
ascertaining the veracity of the complaint version to proceed further in the
matter. If upon consideration of the statements of the complainant and his
witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., respectively
along with the other material available on record, the Court is not satisfied
regarding the credibility of the allegations made in the compliant, no
                                                                                           CRLR No. 5651 of 2024
                                                                   3


                                    further proceedings can be permitted to continue.

                                    9. In view of above discussion, I do not find any illegality, perversity or
                                    infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, therefore, the
                                    present criminal revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.



                                                                                   (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Arti




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