Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 78287 (ALL)

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

CRLR/3734/2024 · 2025-09-09

Harvir Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3734 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Juedge (D.A.A.), Budaun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 414 of 2024 (Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs. Vimal Rastogi and others), by which the application moved by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Juedge (D.A.A.), Budaun found that no case in respect of under Section 386 I.P.C. or otherwise is made out against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and the ingredients as required to attract said sections are not complete. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Juedge (D.A.A.), Budaun is illegal and arbitrary and the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Juedge (D.A.A.), Budaun did not consider the averments and the grounds taken in the said application and has passed the order in a cursory manner. He has further submitted that, there are specific allegations against opposite party nos. 2 to 5 that they are demanding Rs. 50 lacs as ransom from the revisionist and threatening that on failure of the same, the revisionist shall be implicated in some false and frivolous cases, therefore, the revisionist has made out a case for passing appropriate order directing the concerned police station to lodge the first information report in relevant sections against opposite party nos. 2 to 5. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos 2 to 5 has submitted that the revisionist and the opposite parties are related to each other. The revisionist Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajal Krishna Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kulveer Singh, Santosh Kumar Shukla, Sunil Nagar Dinesh Kumar Gupta .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) is the son-in-law of the brother of opposite party no. 2 and Civil Suit being Original Suit No. 134 of 2022 (Smt. Kiran Rastogi vs. Rahul Rastogi and four others) and 184 of 2022 (Kiran Rastogi vs. Rahul Rastogi and four others) are pending between the parties. He next submitted that the revisionist has already lodged an F.I.R., bearing no. 272 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District-Budaun against the opposite parties. Against the said case, the opposite parties have also filed an application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., bearing no. 7680 of 2025 before this Court, in which this Court had granted interim relief to the opposite parties. He further submitted that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist before the learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Juedge (D.A.A.), Budaun with the intention to harass the opposite parties and in order to wreak vengeance, is totally abuse of process of law and prayed that the present revision is liable to be rejected. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order dated 25.04.2024 that the findings arrived at by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Juedge (D.A.A.), Budaun appears to be in accordance with law, since the ingredients of Section 386 I.P.C. is not made out, as much as there would be some exchange of ransom, whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, does not complete the act or the crime as such. Moreover, there are civil litigations pending between the parties and they are related to each other, therefore the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Juedge (D.A.A.), Budaun is totally perfect, valid and in accordance with law, hence no interference is required by this Court. 6. The instant revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. September 10, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 3734 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad