Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133653 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1219 of 2025 Revisionist :- Pawan Kumar Paharia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhitab Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Srivastava,G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred with the prayer to set-aside the order dated 20.2.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1960 of 2024) (now converted as Complaint No. 10724 of 2025), under Sections 120-B, 420, 408, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad. Further prayer has been made to direct the C.J.M., Ghaziabad to proceed with the case according to the provisions of CrPC and not B.N.S.S. and also to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid impugned order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the learned AGA. 3. Admit. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that against the final report submitted by the police a protest petition was filed by the revisionist but however instead of passing an order to lodge an F.I.R. in the matter, the said protest petition was treated as complaint. It is also submitted that the Court concerned is proceeding in the matter under the provisions of BNSS whereas the correct procedure to proceed with the case should be under the provisions of CrPC, as the matter relates to the case crime no. 1265 of 2022 when the new criminal law under BNSS was not in existence. It is also submitted that earlier F.I.R. in this case was lodged at Kolkata and subsequently it was transferred to district Ghaziabad and part investigation in the matter was conducted by the police at Kolkata but the materials collected by the Investigating Officer at Kolkata have not been considered by the trial court whereas the materials collected by the police in the case lodged at Kolkata were also part of the case diary and relevant for appreciation of the present matter. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the learned AGA opposed the prayer and it has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 that since the matter relates to case crime no. 1265 of 2022, the procedure ought to have been adopted by the Court concerned provided under the CrPC and not under the BNSS. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 that all the sufficient documentary evidence are available on record which were collected by the I.O. during investigation and same are part of the case diary which could easily be filed by the revisionists in their complaint under the relevant provisions of CrPC. The trial court has committed no error in holding that the complainant may easily submit the certified copies of the same before the trial court. In the impugned order it has been highlighted by the trial court that the Investigating Officer of Ghaziabad police has not conducted investigation in this matter in proper manner and that was also a reason for treating the protest petition as a criminal complaint case. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 7. It reveals from the perusal of the record that in the impugned order except to the extent that the procedure to proceed with the case should be adopted by the trial court as provided under the CrPC and not the BNSS, as the matter relates to the case crime no. 1265 of 2022 when the new criminal law under BNSS was not in existence, no perversity is found. There was no need to court concerned to proceed with the protest petition by making an order to summon the accused persons directly. The complainant was competent enough to produce the entire relevant evidence before the Court himself. Hence, no irregularity or legal error was committed by the trial court in treating the protest petition as a complaint and the said part of the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with by this Court by using its power as revisional court. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal revision is partly allowed. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad