HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3775 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opp. party nos. 2 to 10, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 23.5.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (JD)/ Judicial Magistrate, Chhibramau, Kannauj in Misc. Case (Suit) No. 13/11/2024, Mohan Lal Verma Vs. Lalaram and others, Police Station Vishungarh, District Kannauj whereby, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the allegations have been made against opp. party no. 2, that while discharging his duties as a clerk in Sarvajanik Kisan Vidyalay, Jagdishpur, Bhaurajpur, District Kannauj (hereinafter referred to as the "Institution"), he was also discharging duties in the capacity of Managing Director in the same institution. It has further been alleged that opp. party no. 2 was discharging his duties in the capacity of a clerk as well as the Managing Director of the said institution. A person cannot hold the two posts simultaneously. It has further been submitted that opp. party no. 2, while discharging his duties in the capacity of the Managing Director of the institution, got his kith and kin appointed in the said college/ institution. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 submitted that so far as Lalaram Varma son of Girdhari Lal is concerned, he is different person from another Lalaram Verma son of Devi Dayal, who was, at Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : R.K. Singh. Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Keshav Kumar Srivastava Mohan Lal Verma .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 9 Others .....Opposite Party(s) some point of time, acting as Managing Director of the said institution and was also a founder member of the institution. It has further been submitted that these two persons, named as Lalaram, are two separate persons. Learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 has further submitted that even earlier also, some complaint was filed by the revisionist on the same set of allegations, which was disposed of by the competent court on 21.02.2023. Though the order is not on record. Learned Additional Civil Judge (JD)/ Judicial Magistrate, Chhibramau, Kannauj, has dismissed the application filed by the revisionist, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which is in the correct perspective and there is no illegality committed by him and the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that there may be two different persons of the same name, but in the present case, Lalaram son of Girdhari Lal was appointed as a clerk in the institution whereas Lalaram son of Devi Dayal may be another person, who was allegedly founder member of the Institution. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that besides the fact, there may be two different persons of the same name, but the only person, who is Lalaram Verma son of Girdhari Lal was discharging his duties in the capacity of a clerk as well as the Director of the same institution, at relevant point of time. 6. A perusal of record shows that, there is a list dated 13.09.2004 of Committee of Management concerned, in which the name of Lalaram is appearing as Managing Director and his occupation is shown to be agriculture. Since the matter involves mixed question of fact of law, the same can only be examined in the trial. Moreover, the report of District Inspector of Schools dated 03.08.2018 has left it open, that in future, the revisionist shall have an opportunity to get an enquiry set up in respect of the person named Lalaram Verma son of Girdhari Lal, but it is not a case here. The issue involved here is that Lalaram son of Girdhari Lal, who is the same person acting in the capacity of a clerk as well as Managing Director of the institution, has committed irregularity during his tenure, while he was discharging his duties as Managing Director of the Institution. CRLR No. 3775 of 2024 2 7. These are certain questions of both facts and law wherein, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed without touching into those aspects, though it was required on the part of the Judicial Magistrate concerned to consider the entire evidence of both sides available on record and pass the order which has not been done, while passing the order impugned dated 23.05.2024, hence, this revision is liable to be allowed. 8. The impugned order dated 23.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (JD)/ Judicial Magistrate, Chhibramau, Kannauj is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Magistrate concerned for passing the order afresh, after considering the entire evidence of both sides available on record. 9. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. September 10, 2025 Gss CRLR No. 3775 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad