[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Lavalesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:84115
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13594 of 2025
Lavalesh Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ajay Sengar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Shri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following main prayer :-
"A. Set aside the Impugned Order dated 07.01.2023 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai in Final Report/Misc. Case No. 0512 of 2020 (Aditya Kumar Versus Keshav Kant Tripathi And Others), rejecting the Protest Petition filed by the Petitioner herein and accepting the Final Report, submitted by the Investigating Officer in respect of the Case Crime No. 0063 of 2019, u/Ss. 420,467,468 & 471 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Rampura, District Jalaun and the Impugned Order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.01, Jalaun at Orai, dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 0019 of 2023 (Lavlesh Kumar Versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Another) preferred by the Petitioner herein.
B. Direct to the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai to pass a fresh Order accordance with law in respect of the in Final Report/Misc. Case No. 0512 of 2020 (Aditya Kumar Versus Keshav Kant Tripathi And Others), allowing the Protest Petition filed by the Petitioner herein and rejecting the Final Report, submitted by the Investigating Officer in respect of the Case Crime No. 0063 of 2019, u/Ss. 420,467,468 & 471 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Rampura, District Jalaun."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a huge amount of government money was misappropriated by the Gram Pradhan and Gram Panchayat Sachiv of Gram Panchayat-Hamirpura Jagir, Vikas Khand-Rampura, District Jalaun, which was allotted with the purpose to disburse among the beneficiaries of 'Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana'. An amount of Rs.40,000/-which was allotted in favour of the petitioner was also misappropriated, for which a complaint was lodged before the District Magistrate, Jalaun. The matter was inquired and both above persons were found guilty. Subsequently, an FIR in Case Crime Number 0063 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Rampura, District Jalaun was lodged against the accused persons on 10.04.2019. However, a final report was submitted in the said case with intent to extend illegal benefit to accused persons. Said FIR was registered by one Aditya Kumar, who at that time was posted as Block Development Officer, Rampura, District Jalaun. Notices were issued to informant Aditya Kumar and he appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Misc. Case No.512 of 2020 (Aditya Kumar vs. Keshavkant & Ors.). He was examined before the court as CW-1 and he stated that he has no objection if the said final report is accepted. Subsequently, the final report was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 07.01.2023. It is pertinent to mention that a protest petition on behalf of the petitioner was also filed but the same was ignored by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the final report was accepted solely on the basis of the statements of complainant/informant.
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2023, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.19 of 2023 (Lavalesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Anr.). However, the said revision was dismissed on 20.8.2024 by observing that the petitioner, being a mere complainant, has no locus to file a protest petition in a case where a final report has been submitted by the investigating officer after investigating the case instituted on the basis of the First Information Report.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inquiry against the respondent/accused was initiated at the instance of petitioner, and the petitioner was also a sufferer of the misappropriation carried out by the accused persons. In the given circumstances, the petitioner being a victim of the alleged fraud had every right to appear before the concerned court in order to raise his objections by means of filing a protest petition before the learned trial court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh and Others vs Ashish Mishra alias Monu and Another, 2022 (9) SCC 321. He submitted that it has been clearly held by Supreme Court that a person, who is a victim of a crime, has every right to appear in a proceeding instituted upon a criminal complaint. It was lastly submitted by learned counsel that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the revisional court have committed gross illegality in rejecting his prayer to allow his protest petition.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused the records including the impugned orders.
7. The sole question for consideration in this case is whether a person, who is neither an informant nor a witness, has any right to appear in a criminal proceeding solely because he is also one of the victims of the alleged crime.
8. In order to answer this question, it will be relevant to refer to the definition of ?victim? as envisaged under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. The definition in the said provision is that a "victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir.
9. It is pertinent to mention that FIR was lodged by Block Development Officer wherein he has mentioned that certain complaints were submitted by villagers including the present petitioner. The said averment of the informant in the First Information Report reflects that the petitioner and other villagers were merely complainants on whose complaints the First Information Report was lodged. Hence, a complainant in no way can claim himself to be a ?victim? of the crime unless he is able to show that he did actually suffer loss due to the alleged commission of crime.
10. The petitioner in the present case has not been able to establish whether such evidences were collected during the investigation wherein it was found that the petitioner too had suffered certain loss due to the misappropriation committed by the alleged accused persons. Hence, both impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity.
11. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned order dated 7.12023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Misc. Case No.512 of 2020 and the order dated 20.8.2024 passed by the revisinal court in Criminal Revision No.19 of 2023 are upheld.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
April 16, 2026
SK
