Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127770 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 419 BNSS DEFECTIVE No. - 120 of 2025 Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jalaj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. In Ref:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application. Heard. For the reasons mentioned behind the delay of 44 days in filing the appeal, the same is condoned. The application is allowed. Office to allot regular number to this appeal. (Order on Criminal Misc. Application) Complainant-Applicant has filed this appeal under Section 419(4) B.N.S.S. to challenge the judgment dated 29.3.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Room No.1, Bareilly in Complaint No. 1909 of 2024, titled Suresh Chandra Gupta Vs. Indresh Parashari and another, under Sections 452, 323, 379 I.P.C., Police Station Meerganj, District Bareilly, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the complainant-applicant has argued that the accused being landlord had been trying forcible eviction of the complainant-applicant from the shop in question and in one such attempt the solar panels installed for generation and utilization of the electricity at the demised property were damaged by the accused, and the evidence on record clearly proved the charges against the accused, however, the trial court proceeded to acquit the accused persons. Learned counsel submits that the accused entered his shop in the evening and gave him beatings while snatching Rs.10,000/- from his cash box and the prosecution case based on a complaint was duly supported by the complainant and other material witnesses, but the said evidence has not been properly appreciated by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.3.2025, which calls for interference by this Court. He prays for grant of leave to appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering his submissions, this Court finds that though the complaint filed by the complainant has not been placed on record, but the contents of the same have been noticed in the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.3.2025, wherein it is clearly mentioned that upon noticing the damaged panels on the rooftop, the complainant asked the landlord if, he knows the persons who caused the damage. Thus, on one hand, the complainant-applicant is asking the landlord about the involvement of the persons in the alleged commission of crime and at the same time, he is accusing the landlord. Most importantly, the trial court had not issued process against the accused for the alleged commission of offence of mischief and even subsequently no such charge was framed against the accused persons. Admittedly, the civil litigation between the parties is also pending, therefore, the material on record, particularly the prosecution evidence does not conclusively prove the charges against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt. A perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.3.2025 would show that the trial court has carefully examined the facts, circumstances and evidence on record while extending the benefit of doubt to the accused and the said view is based upon proper appreciation of the evidence. No other argument has been raised. Resultantly, no case is made out for interference with the impugned findings returned on acquittal of the accused. Dismissed. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 P.S.Parihar Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad