Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29069 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4105 of 2025 Applicant :- Daya Shanker Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Mishra,Ashutosh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the instant application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (482 Cr.P.C.) the applicant has assailed the judgment and order dated 27.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court Room No. 1, Sultanpur in Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2024 whereby the said revision has been dismissed and the order of the trial court treating the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint dated 25.6.2024 has been upheld. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has submitted a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that the private opposite parties had approached the applicant for taking his land on lease for setting up a rice-mill. It is stated that initially the applicant had objected and was not agreeable to give the said land on lease as the same was a joint property and had not been partitioned but on the insistence of the private opposite parties, the applicant agreed to give the said land on lease for annual rental of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacs only), which would be increased by 10% every five years and it was further agreed that in case the applicant wishes, the private opposite parties would vacate the said land after a period of ten years. It is stated that on 08.05.2024, the opposite parties came and took the applicant to the bank where all of them met the Manager of the Bank, who stated that a registered agreement would be necessary in case loan for setting up a rice mill was to be advanced by the opposite parties. Accordingly, the applicant along with private opposite parties proceeded to the office of the Sub Registrar and executed a lease deed where the allegation is that the applicant was not informed that the private opposite parties have got lease deed registered. It was further stated that the applicant is a simple and illiterate person and accordingly had signed on certain papers, which was written in english. 4. Considering the aforesaid allegations, which were mentioned by the applicant in his complaint, by means of order dated 25.06.2024 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur registered the same as a complaint and fixed a date for recording statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. but the applicant was aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2024 on the ground that the case would have to be now prosecuted by the applicant himself whereas he wanted the matter should be investigated by the police, so that CCTV footage of the applicant could be obtained from which the applicant could establish that he had not received any advance from the opposite parties. 5. The trial court also looked into the entire material on record and found that there was no allegation in the complaint that any consideration was received or alleged to have been received in the premises of the bank. The trial court also returned the finding that all the facts mentioned in the complaint are within the personal knowledge of the applicant and consequently he would be able to proceed to prosecute the said case himself as a complaint case and there was no requirement of police investigation and consequently rejected the revision preferred by the applicant. The applicant has reiterated the grounds raised by him in the revision before the trial court. 6. This Court has considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. 7. On perusal of the complaint this Court finds that there was no allegation with regard to any payment not having been received and consequently, there was no occasion for the trial court to have required any investigation to the allegations made in the complaint. From perusal of complaint this Court finds that all the allegations levelled therein are within the personal knowledge of the applicant and only ground raised by him is that he never received any consideration towards execution of the lease deed. Once the applicant has taken ground that he has not received any consideration, in normal course of events, it would lie upon the other side to prove the contrary and accordingly, this Court does not find any relevance for obtaining the CCTV Footage from the bank to demonstrate that the applicant did not receive any consideration for the lease deed. A perusal of the complaint also does not disclose the fact that no money was paid to the applicant in the bank by the opposite parties, and therefore, in absence of any such assertion, I do not find any error in the impugned order rejecting the application of the applicant. 8. It is in the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated either by means of order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur or order dated 27.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court Room No. 1, Sultanpur in Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2024. 9. Accordingly, this application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (482 Cr.P.C.) being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench