HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5170 of 2025 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist-Nayyar Alam against the order dated 4.8.2025 passed by ACJM-I, Court No.12, Jaunpur in Case No.215 of 2024 (Nayyar Alam vs. Mohammad Arif and others), Police Station-Kheta Sarai, District-Jaunpur. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that learned trial court has passed the impugned order dated 4.8.2025, which is illegal and is having material irregularities. He has submitted that he had filed a complaint dated 30.7.2024 under Section 175 (3) BNSS before the trial court. There is a sale-deed, which was executed on 15.3.2017 between Zameer Ahmad, Azim Ahmad and Musurphun, who were the sellers and Mohd. Arif and the revisionist were the purchasers. The sale consideration is of Rs.10 lakhs. The revisionist became the owner of 0.760 hectare and Mohd. Arif became the owner of 0.126 hectare and both had taken possession over the property with mutual settlement in accordance with sale-deed. It is submitted that revisionist paid the payment of Mohd.Arif at the time of execution of the sale-deed and when he demanded, then Arif became annoyed and sold the land in question mentioned in the sale-deed beyond the portion of them. It is further submitted that on 30.6.2024, the alleged incident took place and Mohd.Arif along with other persons abuses and slapped him and snatched Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Brijesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajitabh Choubey, B.B.Rai, G.A. Nayyar Alam .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Rs.2,000/- and a watch in the hand of revisionist. He sent the information to the S.P. Jaunpur, but no FIR was registered. 4. Learned AGA has submitted that the matter in question is a purely civil dispute. The sale-deed is of 15.3.2017. There is no medical report and he is a habitual offender and he regularly file one or the another applications. 5. Perused the impugned order dated 4.8.2025. The learned trial court has specifically mentioned that there is no mention in the said sale-deed dated 15.3.2017 that the revisionist had paid the sale consideration amount of another purchaser Mohd. Arif. Hence, there is no question of return of any money by Mohd.Arif to the revisionist. The sale-deed dated 15.3.2017 is a registered document, which is executed in accordance with law. The matter in dispute is of any transactions. The matter appears to be a civil dispute. There is no ingredients of any offence as per narration. It appears that the civil dispute is trying to give the colour of criminality. 6. The Apex Court in IOC vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others (2006) 6 SCC 736 has held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 7. In view thereof and consideration of entire facts, circumstances and perusal of the impugned order dated 4.8.2025, it appears that there is no illegality or irregularity in the said impugned order. Hence, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed in limine. 8. Accordingly, it is dismissed. October 13, 2025 LN Tripathi CRLR No. 5170 of 2025 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad