Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50838 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3553 of 2025 Applicant :- Devdatt Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Singh Kushwaha,Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J. 1. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to challenge the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No. 648 of 2019 (Devdatt Gautam Vs. Pushp Kumar and another), police station - Khurja Nagar, District - Bulandshahr whereby the complaint of the applicant was rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C.. 2. The said order was challenged in the revision being Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2022 (Devdatt Gautam Vs. Pushp Kumar and another) before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Bulandshahr. It has also been rejected by order dated 22.11.2024 on technical points without looking into the merit of the case. 3. The aforesaid orders dated 31.3.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr and order dated 22.11.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Bulandshahr respectively are under challenge. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr without considering the material evidence on record and without appreciating the facts of the case has rejected criminal complaint under section 203 Cr.P,.C, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. It is further submitted that the said order was challenged in revision i.e. Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2022 before the revisional court i.e. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Bulandshahr. 6. The revisional court vide order dated 25.04.2022 admitted the criminal revision and issued notice to the opposite parties and fixed for hearing on 10.5.2022. When the revision was heard on the date fixed, the revisional court after perusal from the file find that step was not taken by the revisionist for service of opposite party no. 2 and, therefore, the revisional court has reached to the conclusion that the revisionist has no interest in pressing the revision. 7. It is also submitted that the case of the applicant is a very good case on merit and after hearing the petitioner on the first occasion, the revisinal court has admitted the revision and it is also submitted that due to bona fide mistake of the counsel steps could not be taken and it is submitted that on the fault of the advocate of revisionist, the applicant may not be suffered. It is prayed that order or direction may be passed for revival of the criminal revision to decide the same on merit. 8. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 9. The applicant has only limited prayer to the extent that the revisional court may be directed to decide the revision on merit after revival of the case and it is also undertaken that the opposite party no. 2 will take appropriate steps. 10. Taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts stated by the counsel for the applicant, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to direct the court concerned to revive the Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2022 (Devdatt Gautam Vs. Pushp Kumar and another) and give one opportunity to the applicant to serve opposite party no. 2 and decide the criminal revision on merits in accordance with law expeditiously without giving unnecessary adjournments to the parties. 11. In view of above, the present application is disposed of. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 S.K.S. (Chandra Dhari Singh,J) Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad