HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1249 of 2024 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as well as learned AGA for the State. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 31.1.2024 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jaunpur in Complaint Case No. 132 of 2019 (Mahananad Versus Bhagwan Das Gupta and others), by which the application moved by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) CrPC has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a civil contractor and is doing some petty works of repair and maintenance across the district. Learned counsel also submits that besides the non-payment for the work being done by the revisionist, he was abused and a indifferent treatment was meted out to the revisionist. Learned counsel further submits that, whenever he demanded money against the civil work being completed by the revisionist, the said money was not only denied but he was treated with a different approach by passing sarcastic and caste indicating remarks with derogatory language and being that so, had the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, considered the violation of the Act, the application under Section 156 (3) CrPC would have been allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submits that the allegations made in the said application under Section 156 (3) CrPC are false Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Vijay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dinesh Pratap Singh, G.A., Ravindra Kumar Yadav Mahanand @ Mahanand Gautam .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) and baseless and the opposite parties are responsible government officials discharging their duties in accordance with law and the procedure. The allegations of not making payment to the revisionist are false and baseless. The revisionist was paid from time to time for the work completed and done by him. However, one important aspect, i. e the quality of work being done by the revisionist was also to be supervised and examined and just because of the quality of work, the payment was stopped. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 submitted, that because of the defective quality of the civil work being done by the revisionist, several letters and reminders were written to the revisionist to improve the said quality of the work. However, he failed to do so and a dispute regarding non-payment has arisen. 5. Having regard to the rival submissions and perusal of the impugned order, wherein learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act has arrived at the conclusion that because of the inferior quality of work, several letters were written to the revisionist to improve the quality of civil work, but he failed to improve upon. However, none of the letters or reminders in that behalf written by the opposite parties to the revisionist, is on record. Under the circumstances, the order dated 30.1.2024 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jaunpur is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jaunpur to pass a fresh order, if such letters are found to be placed on record issued by the opposite parties against the revisionist for improving the quality of work. 6. Revision is disposed of. October 8, 2025 HR CRLR No. 1249 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad