HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 553 of 2025 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents, and perused the record. 2. The instant petition has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No.333 of 2024 titled Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, whereby the order dated 29.5.2025 passed by the learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Second, Saharanpur was challenged. 3. In brief, the complainant's case is that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are mother and father of the complainant's friend- Damandeep Singh (since deceased)- who had taken Rs. 3 lakhs with the promise to return the same. However, after the death of Damandeep Singh, the complainant preferred an application under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Second, Saharanpur with a prayer to summon the respondents under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Second, Saharanpur dismissed the complaint with the finding that there was a dispute with regard to some financial transaction between the complainant and his friend Damandeep Singh, and after his death, the present complaint has been filed against his parents, therefore, no offence has been made out against the parents. 4. The complaint was dismissed in accordance with Section 203 Cr.P.C. Further, the revisional court upheld the findings recorded by the C.J.M. concerned, and dismissed the revision. 5. On a pointed query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner states Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankur Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Amit Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) that the complainant has not approached the police for registration of F.I.R. neither any such complaint is on record. On the contrary, the complainant had straightaway moved to the court, he can, but there must be a reason as to why the complainant has not approached the police for registering a case of cheating, forgery, theft and intimidation, where such facts forming part of cognizable offence. 6. There may be some financial transaction between complainant and his friend, who subsequently died. In Court's view, prima-facie, no criminal case has been made out against the respondent nos.2 & 3. 7. While summoning the accused in criminal case, the courts needs greater sincerity and should be conscious of the fact that the process of criminal court should not be misused. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no manifest illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. September 12, 2025 SY A227 No. 553 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad