HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3871 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.,Court No. 8, Prayagraj by which the application moved by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.p.C. has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has paid about Rs. 16,14,000/- by way of transfer through R.T.G.S., Google pay etc. in the account of opp. party no. 3. It has further been submitted that the opp. party nos. 2 and 3 have executed some agreement between them in respect of the property bearing Araji No. 210 area 0.2250 hectare situated at Mauja Baraut, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the said property was shown to the revisionist, which is situated nearby the canal bank and having trust and confidence, the revisionist paid the said money to purchase the land from one Manish Rana, who is having agreement to purchase from opp. party no. 2. 4. Learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 submits that the opp. party no. 2 is neither owner nor having any title of the property in dispute and submitted that he never received any amount from the revisionist and he has never executed any agreement dated 23.12.2021 with opp. party no. 3 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ankit Kumar, Shrawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Ramesh Kumar Shukla Vijay Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) namely, Manish Rana. Learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 further submitted that, if at all any money has been transferred in the account of any persons, the opp.party no. 2 is not responsible for the same. It is further submitted that if the some transaction has taken place between the revisionist and opp. party no. 3, the same is not in the knowledge of opp. party no. 2 and opp. party no. 2 further denied regarding execution of any agreement dated 23.12.2021 with opp. party no. 3 i.e. Manish Rana. 5. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it can be seen that the amount was transferred in the account of opp. party no. 3, not in the account of opp. party no. 2. It is also on record that no such agreement of sale was executed between opp. party no. 3 and the revisionist. However it is not on record as to how much land was purchased from opp. party no. 3 and on what rate the said land was being purchased from opp. party no. 3. It is also found that the revisionist had neither executed any agreement with opp. party no. 3 nor any terms and condition was fixed through any agreement between the parties. Rate and area of land is also not clear anywhere in the pleadings, therefore, under the circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the order impugned. The present revision has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The present revision stands dismissed. However, it shall remain open to the revisionist to approach appropriate court/forum for the recovery of that amount, which has been transferred in the account of opp. party nos. 3 or 2. If there is any delay which may come in the way of the revisionist for seeking appropriate remedy under law, the said delay shall be considered to be condoned. October 6, 2025 Gss CRLR No. 3871 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad