HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4426 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 2 to 10, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, in Application No. 932 of 2025 (Seema Gupta vs. Guddu), under Section 173(4) Cr.P.C., Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh, whereby the said application was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist had filed an application under Section 173(4) Cr.P.C., which has been rejected by the learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 24.06.2025. He has further submitted that the incident occurred on 22.02.2025 and the injured sustained several injuries. It is also submitted that opposite party nos. 8, 9, and 10 are government officials, namely the S.H.O., Sub-Inspector, and Constable, respectively, of Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the revision and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application under Section 173(4) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the learned trial court has observed that the revisionist had obtained the report from the concerned police Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : P.K. Singh, Shashi Kant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, G.A., Mashhood Abbas Seema Gupta .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 9 Others .....Opposite Party(s) station. It has been reported that both parties are pattidars and belong to the same family lineage, and there is a dispute between them regarding possession of ancestral property. The incident occurred on 22.02.2025. Harikesh, the complainant in the case, filed an application on the basis of which a case was registered vide Case Crime No. 49 of 2025 at the concerned police station. On the application of Ashwini, the brother of the complainant, another case, vide Case Crime No. 50 of 2025, was also registered at the same police station. 6. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the revisionist that an FIR has already been registered regarding the said incident against the accused persons vide Case Crime No. 49 of 2025. An FIR in respect of the same incident has also been lodged by the brother of the complainant vide Case Crime No. 50 of 2025. If any further accused are found to be involved on the basis of evidence submitted before the Investigating Officer, the revisionist may move an appropriate application before the learned trial court under the relevant provisions of law. 7. In view of the above, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. March 16, 2026 M. Tarik CRLR No. 4426 of 2025 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad