Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110988 Court No. - 70 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6126 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shraddha Nand Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- G.A.,Indra Jit Singh,Meenal Singh,Sr. Advocate Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed to stay the effect and operation/ setting aside the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/ F.T.C. II Basti in Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2024 (Shraddha Nand Pandey Vs. Yogendra Nath & Others) whereby revision has been rejected affirming the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Basti by which application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the F.I.R. against the accused opposite parties, which has been rejected vide order impugned dated 21.08.2024 against which petitioner filed criminal revision and the same has also been rejected. Learned counsel further submits that perusal of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. disclose commission of cognizable offence against the accused persons, inspite of the same, the learned Magistrate has rejected the same without applying its judicial mind, against which order, revision was preferred which too has been rejected without considering the factual and legal aspect of the matter and therefore, the impugned orders are wholly illegal, arbitrary and are liable to be set aside by this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that the impugned orders are perfectly legal, just and proper which calls for no interference by this Court. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Basti shows that the learned Magistrate while rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has observed that the application in question has been submitted by the petitioner with malicious intention concealing the real facts. The revision Court too, rejected the revision after considering the entire factual and legal aspects of the matter and therefore, in the opinion of the Court, learned counsel for the petition could not point out any legal infirmity in the orders impugned which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is however provided that petitioner shall avail appropriate remedy as available under law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 AS Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad