HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2953 of 2024 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 20.7.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah in Misc. Application No. 122 of 2023 (Jayant Prakash vs. Suman and others), under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., by which the application moved by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that, opposite party no. 2 in connivance with opposite party no. 3 has allegedly murdered her real brother Sunil Kumar. He next submitted that, while committing the said offence, the daughter of the deceased has also witnessed the incident and stated that the uncle of revisionist namely, Dr. Shyam Suri and opposite party no. 2, the mother of child Vishakha have committed the crime. No other witness or material has been brought on record to show, that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were instrumental in eliminating the deceased husband of opposite party no. 2. He further submitted that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were having illicit relations and on being objected by the deceased Sunil Kumar, the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 used to assault him (deceased). He also submitted that the late father of the revisionist and the deceased both had given a sum of Rs. 15 lacs to Dr. Shyam Suri for getting his medical education completed and after Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Arun Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Nagendra Kumar, R.K. Mishra Jayant Prakash .....Revisionist(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) completion of degree, the Dr. Shyam Suri joined government service and after superannuation from services he transferred a sum of Rs. 15 lacs (Rs. fifteen lacs) in the joint account of opposite party no. 2 and the revisionist, thereafter the revisionist has withdrawn the said amount of Rs. 15 lacs and has taken in his use. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have been planned to be falsely implicated on account of death of late husband of opposite party no. 2. He next submitted that, there is no evidence on record whatsoever, that the late father of the revisionist and the deceased gave a sum of Rs. 15 lacs to opposite party no. 3. He further submitted that, even if that was so, the opposite party no. 3 would have repaid / returned the said amount during his service carrer, but the said amount of Rs. 15 lacs was transferred in the joint account of opposite party no. 2 and the revisionist after superannuation from services. He also submitted that, since the revisionist had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 15 lacs from the joint account of revisionist and opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. 2 has taken the matter to legal course, as to how and under what circumstances the said amount has been withdrawn by the revisionist, though the same did not belong to the revisionist in any manner whatsoever. He further submitted that a sum of Rs. 15 lacs was borrowed from opposite party no. 2, who unknowingly transferred the said amount in the account of opposite party no. 2 and did not know that the said account is a joint account of revisionist and opposite party no. 2. Even if, it is presumed that the said fact of joint account was in the knowledge of opposite party no. 3, then there was no reason to withdraw the said amount at the hands of the revisionist. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 has further submitted that the said amount was taken from opposite party no. 3 for carrying out her bread and butter, as the husband of opposite party no. 2 has died. He also submitted that the present application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed belatedly as the deceased has passed away on 17.3.2022 and thereafter a letter was written to Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah on 31.08.2023 and finally the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 21.2.2023 and it was only to defeat CRLR No. 2953 of 2024 2 the said case, which the opposite party no. 2 has filed against the revisionist in respect of withdrawal of said amount of Rs. 15 lacs from the account of revisionist and opposite party no. 2. He further submitted that both opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are absolutely innocent and a false and frivolous story has been concocted to falsely implicate them in the said false case. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the fact that, there is no evidence on record to show, that the late father of revisionist and the deceased Sunil Kumar gave a sum of Rs. 15 lacs to opposite party no. 3 for pursuing his medical degree and if that was so, the said amount of Rs. 15 lacs would have been returned during the service tenure of opposite party no. 3, for more than thirty years of service rendered to the State Government and the said amount of Rs. 15 lacs was transferred to the joint account of revisionist and opposite party no. 3, which the opposite party no. 2 has borrowed or taken from the opposite party no. 3 for survival of herself and her children. No mens rea or any kind is available to the revisionist to move the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appears to be in accordance with law, hence calls for no interference by this Court. 7. The present revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. October 14, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 2953 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad