Rajeev Sharma vs State Of U.P. & 5 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 21680 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rajeev Sharma vs State Of U.P. & 5 Others on 2 July, 2024

Author: Gautam Chowdhary

Bench: Gautam Chowdhary

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106809
 
Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2855 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- Rajeev Sharma
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 5 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Somdev Dixit
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad in Complaint Case No. 8812 of 2022 (Rajeev Sharma Vs. Mahesh Chandra and others), whereby complaint moved by the revisionist has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that initially the revisionist moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court concerned wherein the concerned Magistrate directed the police to register the case against the accused persons, thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted final report, against which protest petition was filed by the revisionist whereupon the court concerned directed to register the case as a complaint case vide order dated 10.03.2022, thereafter statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they supported the prosecution case and thereafter vide order dated 17.12.2023 the court concerned directed for further investigation and to submit report. Learned counsel further submits that one Vipin Vir filed an affidavit stating therein that in Jai Durga Maa Group, the revisionist along with Lallu Singh, Zakir Husain and Smt. Mamta were members and placing reliance upon the said affidavit the court concerned rejected the complaint of the revisionist without considering the evidence available on record. Thus, it is argued that the impugned judgment and order requires interference.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The learned Judicial Magistrate after considering the entire material available on record has rejected the complaint vide impugned order, thus no case is made out for any interference.

5. Perusal of the order impugned shows that the learned Magistrate after considering the entire material available on record had observed that during investigation the concerned Bank informed Investigating Officer in writing that correct procedure has been adopted in loan distribution to all the concerned groups, and moreover the complainant has not produced any evidence against the opposite parties for promising employment and committing fraud by hatching a conspiracy in relation to taking loan from the Bank. Thus, there is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the order impugned and the same has rightly been passed by the court concerned after considering the entire material available on record. Moreover, the revisionist has failed to show any illegality or perversity in the order impugned, as such, no case is made out for interference. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

6. Dismissed accordingly.

Order Date :- 2.7.2024

Mustaqeem.