Allahabad High Court

LALU SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: SANJIV KUMAR

Holding

The High Court held that the magistrate’s dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. was lawful and not perverse, warranting dismissal of the revision.

Summary

The petitioner Lalu Singh filed a criminal revision challenging the dismissal of his complaint by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. He alleged that the magistrate failed to apply a judicial mind to the CCTV footage and other evidence showing that police officials had looted his shop and falsely implicated him. The State argued that the complaint lacked sufficient material to summon the accused and was motivated by the petitioner's grievance under the NDPS Act. The High Court examined the magistrate’s duty to scrutinise evidence before summoning an accused, citing Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate. Finding no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the magistrate’s order, the Court dismissed the revision.

Issues considered

Whether the magistrate erred in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. without applying a judicial mind to the evidence.
Whether the material evidence, including CCTV footage, was sufficient to summon the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C.
Whether the revision is maintainable in view of the alleged motive of the petitioner.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 200, 202, 203, 204
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
Prevention of Corruption Act

Subjects

criminal revision
Section 203 CrPC
summoning accused
judicial mind
evidence assessment
CCTV footage
NDPS Act
Prevention of Corruption Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7739 of 2025

Reserved

Lalu Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Om Narayan Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 88
HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Om Narayan Pandey, learned Counsel for the revisionist and
Sri Rajiv Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2025
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.14, Shahjahanpur in
Complaint Case No.4947 of 2023 (Lalu Singh vs. Amit Chaurasiya),
Police Station Madnapur, District Shahjahanpur.

3. By the impugned order, learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint
of the complainant/revisionist under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned
order is illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. It is further
submitted that the impugned order has been passed without application of
judicial mind and is against the weight of evidence on record. It is further
submitted that, from the evidence led on behalf of the complainant and
the CCTV footage of the spot, a prima facie cognizable offence is made
out against the proposed accused (opposite party Nos. 2 to 9).

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the revision and
submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It
is submitted that the revisionist was arrested in a case under the N.D.P.S.
Act and, being annoyed with the police party, has filed the present
CRLR No. 7739 of 2025
2

complaint to falsely implicate them. It is further submitted that the
evidence led by the complainant/revisionist was not sufficient to summon
the proposed accused. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order and the present revision has no force and is liable to be
dismissed.

6. Considering the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties
and upon perusal of the record, it is clear that, by the impugned order, the
learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
The case of the revisionist is that he had lodged a criminal case against
the then police officials of Police Station Madnapur under the Prevention
of Corruption Act, in which the police officials and the Circle Officer
were putting pressure upon the revisionist to compromise the matter, and
had threatened that failing which he would be implicated in a criminal
case. On 07.09.2022, the proposed accused came to his shop in a WagonR
car and a motorcycle, abused and looted his mobile phone as well as
money from his cash box (galla). When he protested, they misbehaved
with him and forcibly took him to the Police Station, and was falsely
implicated in a criminal case. He further claims that he has video footage
of the alleged incident.

7. In view of aforesaid facts, the revisionist had filed an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint by the
concerned Magistrate. After recording the evidence under Sections 200
and 202 Cr.P.C., the complaint was dismissed by the impugned order
under Section 203 Cr.P.C. With regard to the summoning of an accused
under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the law is well settled that the Magistrate has
not to act in a mechanical manner, but has to apply his judicial mind to
the facts and should not be carried away by the statement of witnesses
recorded on behalf of the complainant.

9. In this regard the Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs.
Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749. Paragraph-28
of the aforesaid judgment has observed as follows:-

"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter.
Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is
not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support
his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into
CRLR No. 7739 of 2025
3

motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must
reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the
law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations
made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary
in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to
succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the
Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of
preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate
has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may
even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to
elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed
by all or any of the accused."

10. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Magistrate has
dismissed the complaint on the ground that, from the CCTV footage of
the alleged incident, prima facie, no such incident appears to have taken
place. The CCTV footage shows that some persons in plain clothes
arrived at the shop in a car, entered the shop and soon thereafter came out
and left the place. It is not visible from the CCTV footage that the
revisionist was forcibly taken away in the car. Learned A.G.A. has
submitted that the revisionist/complainant had examined the witnesses,
who failed to disclose the source of their knowledge that the persons in
plain clothes who came in a private car were police personnel. Therefore,
their testimony was not reliable. A perusal of impugned order shows that
the Magistrate has also observed that, from the electronic evidence, the
alleged incident does not appear to have taken place and it appears that,
after being challaned under the N.D.P.S. Act, the complainant being
aggrieved, has filed this complaint.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or
perversity. Consequently, no interference by this Court is warranted. The
present revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed.

(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
September 18, 2026
Amit

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…