HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5651 of 2024 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 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Kusum Lata Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pramod Narayan Yadav, Yogendra Kumar Yadav Vikram Bansfor .....Revisionist(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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. May 7, 2026 Arti CRLR No. 5651 of 2024 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad