HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1575 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist / applicant. 2. This criminal revision is reported to be beyond time by 457 days. 3. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision filed by the revisionist which is supported with an affidavit. 4. Learned AGA for the State does not have any objection if the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 5. I have gone through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. The delay in filing this criminal revision has been sufficiently explained. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned. Criminal Revision 1. Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.-02)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1311 of 2023 arising out of application no. 77 of 2023 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., P.S.- Sector- 49 Noida, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Jai Prakash Prasad, Savan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bhupinder Kumar Bansal .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. In the instant matter the complaint filed by the present revisionist/ complainant was dismissed by the learned trial Court under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 16.1.2024. It reveals from perusal of the record that no evidence under Section 200 or 202 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the learned trial Court and on the contrary the complainant/ revisionist himself has not pressed the complaint and that was the reason for passing the impugned order by the learned trial Court which has been challenged by the revisionist by way of filing instant revision. 5. Since the complaint case was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. for want of any evidence and subsequently for endorsing 'not pressed' the complaint by the complainant himself, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 6. In these circumstances, there is no necessity to issue notice to opposite party no.2. 7. In view of above, there is no merit in the instant revision and it is, dismissed in limini at the stage of admission itself. September 9, 2025 Fhd CRLRD No. 1575 of 2025 2 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad