HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14149 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State are present. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Fast-track Court-1, Ghazipur in Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2024 (Jitendra Kumar Rai Vs State of up and others) as well as the order dated 16.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in Complaint Case No. 2676 of 2023 (Jitendrakumar Rai Vs Mohd. Ibrar Ahmed and others). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an FIR in Case Crime No. 1136 of 2016, under Sections 324, 323 and 504 IPC, Police Station Suhwal, District Ghazipur, was lodged against him at the instance of respondent no. 5. It was submitted that the petitioner was posted as a Constable in District Bhadohi and remained posted there from 01.09.2016 to 30.09.2016. However, the concerned Investigating Officer recorded his statement and mentioned in the case diary that the petitioner's statement was recorded at District Ghazipur. It was further submitted that the concerned I.O. intentionally made a false entry and recorded an incorrect statement in the case diary by falsely showing the presence of the petitioner in District Ghazipur at the relevant time. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned C.J.M., Ghazipur, but the same was dismissed on the ground that, even if the allegations in the application were assumed to be true, they would constitute an offence for which only a complaint under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. was maintainable. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Rai, Vijai Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sadhu Sharan Jitendra Kumar Rai .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings recorded by the learned C.J.M. are illegal, as the allegations against the concerned I.O. are covered under Sections 167 and 218 IPC, both of which are cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years. He further submitted that, aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2024, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2024 (Jitendra Kumar Rai vs. State of U.P. and another). However, the said criminal revision was also dismissed, the revisional court concurring with the findings of the learned C.J.M. that the alleged offences could not be prosecuted through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and that proceedings in respect thereof could only be initiated by filing a complaint under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. It was argued that the conduct of the concerned I.O. clearly amounted to offences under Sections 167 and 218 IPC, but both the courts below erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 5. Learned A.G.A. submitted that, even if the allegations of the petitioner are accepted in their entirety, the acts of the I.O. do not fall within the ambit of Sections 167 and 218 IPC. It was argued that no injury or harm was caused to the petitioner merely because the I.O. wrongly mentioned in the case diary that the petitioner's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in District Ghazipur, whereas he was allegedly present in District Bhadohi. It was further submitted that, even if such conduct was deliberate, it neither caused nor intended to cause any injury or harm to the petitioner. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned C.J.M. and the revisional court do not warrant interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court has also considered the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the act of the I.O. amounted to offences under Sections 167 and 218 IPC. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that preparation of an incorrect record constitutes an offence only where such act is intended to cause injury to any person or to save any person from lawful punishment. 7. It is undisputed that the petitioner is an accused in the aforesaid case crime. Even if his statement was wrongly shown in the case diary as having been recorded at District Ghazipur, despite his alleged presence in District Bhadohi, the same does not appear to have caused any injury or harm either to the petitioner or to any other person. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no offence under Sections 167 or 218 IPC is made out against the concerned I.O. merely on account of the incorrect mention of the place where the petitioner's statement was recorded. A227 No. 14149 of 2025 2 8. Accordingly, the orders dated 15.09.2025 and 16.05.2024 are hereby upheld. The present petition stands dismissed. May 14, 2026 Ujjawal A227 No. 14149 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad