Allahabad High Court

MURTAZAversusState of U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 23 April 2026
Bench: ACHAL SACHDEV

Holding

The dismissal of the complaint without prior notice and without affording the complainant an opportunity to be heard was vitiated, warranting the setting aside of the order and remand for fresh hearing.

Summary

The revisionist Murtaza filed a criminal revision under sections 397/401 CrPC against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge POCSO) dated 30‑09‑2024, which dismissed his complaint under section 203 CrPC for non‑appearance. He alleged that the trial court dismissed the complaint without prior notice, without affording him an opportunity to record his statement or that of his witnesses, and without recording reasons. The opposite parties contended that the court had given ample opportunity but the revisionist failed to appear, justifying dismissal. The High Court examined the procedural deficiencies, noting the lack of notice and failure to apply the judicial mind. It held that the dismissal was vitiated and set aside the order, remanding the matter for a fresh hearing with proper opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the revision was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the dismissal of the complaint under section 203 CrPC without prior notice and without affording the complainant an opportunity to be heard is legally valid.
Whether the trial court erred in not recording reasons or findings on the merits before dismissing the complaint.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 200, 202, 203, 397, 401

Subjects

criminal revision
non‑appearance
procedural fairness
notice
POCSO Act
complaint under section 203 CrPC
judicial mind

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5835 of 2024

Murtaza
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Satyakam Dubey,
Suneel Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pratibha Singh

Court No. - 81
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 to 5, is taken
on record.

2. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms.
Pratibha Singh, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 5, learned AGA
for the State and perused the record.

3. Present criminal revision u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the
revisionist against the order dated 30.09.2024, passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act)(Ananya), Jaunpur, in
Complaint Case No.21 of 2024 (Murtaza Vs. Ram Sareek and Others), under
section 203 Cr.P.C., Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, whereby the
complaint of the revisionist/complainant u/s 203 Cr.P.C. has been
dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist moved an
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 25.09.2023, stating therein that on
19.09.2023 at 01.00 hours the opposite party nos.2 to 5 alongwith some
police personnel have illegally occupied the revisionist's purchased land,
abused and assaulted the minor daughter of the revisionist/complainant and
torn her cloths. The daughter of revisionist/complainant was medically
examined by the order dated 20.09.2023 of the District Magistrate, Jaunpur.
CRLR No. 5835 of 2024
2

The revisionist/complainant had no hope of justice from the police station
concerned, therefore, he moved an application before the Superintendent of
Police, Jaunpur, through a registered post, but no action was taken, then
the revisionist/complainant moved application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
before the court concerned with the prayer to register the case and
investigate the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that learned trial court
without considering the seriousness of the matter, illegally and wrongly
passed the order dated 05.06.2024(Annexure No.2), by which the application
U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist/complainant was directed to be
registered as a complaint case and next date 15.06.2024 was fixed for
recording the statement of revisionist/complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist additionally submits that the learned
trial court again fixed the dates 20.07.2024, 10.09.2024 and 30.09.2024, but
neither the revisionist/complainant nor his counsel appeared before the trial
court on the aforesaid dates due to lack of proper information by the counsel
regarding the production of the evidence before the trial court. The trial
court vide impugned order dated 30.09.2024, passed in Complaint Case
No.21 of 2024 (Murtaza Vs. Ram Sareek and Others), under section 203
Cr.P.C., Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur erroneously dismissed the
complaint of the revisionist/complainant u/s 203 Cr.P.C., on the ground
that the revisionist/complainant did not appear before the court on several
dates. Furthermore, he neither recorded his statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. nor
recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and in the said
circumstances there is no ground to proceed against the opposite parties.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further contends that the impugned
order dated 30.09.2024 has been passed by the learned trial court without
issuing any prior notice to the revisionist/complainant and without giving
any cogent reasons and findings on merits. The dismissal has been without
the application of judicial mind, therefore, it is a fit case to be interfered by
CRLR No. 5835 of 2024
3

this Hon'ble Court.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for
the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the revisionist/complainant. It is contended that the
learned revisional court has rightly passed the impugned order dated
30.09.2024 after affording the adequate opportunities to the
revisionist/complainant to record his statement, as well as the statements of
witnesses, and to adduce evidence in support of his case. However, despite
such opportunities, the revisionist/complainant failed to appear before the
court on various dates. Consequently, the impugned order dismissing his
complaint on the ground of non appearance was rightly passed.

9. Heard Ms. Archna Chauhan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sanjeev
Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Pratibha Singh,
learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 5, Sri Jhaman Ram, learned AGA
for the State and perused the record.

10. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 reveals that the same
was passed by the learned trial court without issuing any prior notice to the
revisionist/complainant and without duly appreciating the circumstances
which led to his non-appearance before the trial court. The order further
appears to have been passed without assigning cogent reasons or recording
proper findings on merits and without due application of judicial mind,
particularly in the absence of the revisionist/complainant.

11. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the
revisionist/complainant deserves to be afforded one more opportunity to
appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO
Act), Jaunpur, in Complaint Case No.21 of 2024 (Murtaza vs. Ram Sareek
and Others), under Section 203 Cr.P.C., Police Station Jalalpur, District
Jaunpur, and to record his statement as well as the statements of his
witnesses, hence the impugned order dated 30.09.2024, is liable to the set-
CRLR No. 5835 of 2024
4

aside and revision is liable to be allowed.

12. Accordingly, the present revision u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the
matter is remanded to the trial court concerned to decide the matter afresh,
after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance
with law.

13. The impugned order dated 30.09.2024, passed by the learned Additional
Session Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act)(Ananya), Jaunpur, in Complaint
Case No.21 of 2024 (Murtaza Vs. Ram Sareek and Others), under section
203 Cr.P.C., Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, is hereby set-aside.

April 24, 2026
VKG
(Achal Sachdev,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…