HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2117 of 2024 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Case called out in revised list. No one appears on behalf of revisionist to press this revision even though the name of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate has duly published in the cause list as counsel for revisionist. 2. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4, Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1 and perused the record. 3. Revisionist Anand has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Revision assailing the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Amroha (hereinafter referred to as trial court) in Misc. Case No. 05/2024 (Anand Vs. Pramod and others) CNR No. UPJB040001012024, P.S. Saidnagli, District Amroha wherein the Judicial Magistrate rejected the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist. 4. Feeling aggrieved from that order the present Criminal Revision has been filed on account that the impugned order has been passed without weighing of evidence on record. The Judicial Magistrate has not considered the aspect of the case and illegally directed to police authority to conduct the preliminary inquiry. The impugned order is erroneous, full of illegality and infirmities, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Praveen Kumar Shukla, Premshankar Shukla Anand .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. For just disposal of the case, the necessary facts are that the revisionist/applicant had filed an Application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Jurisdictional Magistrate stating therein that his sister (deceased) had been kidnapped by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and when a complaint in this regard lodged by revisionist/applicant, the opposite party no. 3 extended threats to life. According to the version of the applicant/revisionist, opposite party no. 2 namely Pramod S/o Kishore R/o Village Kandowa, Police Station Saidnagali, District Amroha intended to forcibly marry the applicant's sister. Due to fear of Pramod, the applicant solemnized the marriage of his sister Sundara on 10.12.2023 to Jitendra, R/o Mohalla Kutte Ki Qabra Wala, Town and Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar. 6. After receiving the aforesaid application, the Jurisdictional Magistrate directed the local police to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Pursuant thereto, the police submitted its report which reveals that prior to filing the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and after the death of the deceased, the revisionist had approached the concerned police station and submitted an application stating therein that his sister had been married to Rakesh S/o Bal Singh, R/o Dewas Village Sadar, Police Station Mahendragarh, Haryana. It was further stated in the said application that the deceased was mentally disturbed and on account thereof, had committed suicide. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 submitted that on the basis of aforesaid information, the inquest proceeding of the deceased were conducted and thereafter the dead body was sent for post-mortem wherein the cause of death was detected asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is further submitted that a death certificate of the deceased was also issued wherein the name of the husband of the deceased has been mentioned as Mr. Rakesh meaning thereby the present application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist before the Jurisdictional Magistrate mentioning the wrong facts. It is further contended that the Judicial Magistrate, after considering each and every aspect of the matter and taking note of the aforesaid abnormalities rightly disbelieved the version presented by the revisionist and rejected the same. It is thus contended that the impugned order suffers CRLR No. 2117 of 2024 2 from no illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 8. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1 vehemently opposed the criminal revision. 9. Having heard the learned AGA as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 learned AGA and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the submissions urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 are clearly born out from the record and no one has appeared on behalf of revisionist to confront the aforesaid submissions. 10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the present criminal revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed. May 7, 2026 Arti CRLR No. 2117 of 2024 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad