HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1401 of 2026 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, in Misc. Application No. 300 of 2025 (Shekhdidar Ali vs. Rajesh Kumar Soni and others), under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist filed an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., which has been registered as a complaint. It is contended that investigation is required in the said matter and, therefore, it ought to have been registered as a State case. 4. It is further submitted that the matter involves 200 grams of gold, which is a valuable metal, and hence investigation is necessary. Learned counsel submits that the revisionist is a technician who prepares jewellery in the Sarafa Market and works there. One Rajesh Seth, son of Hori Lal Soni, has a shop at the said place and carries on the business of running a B.C. scheme of gold. The revisionist, being a simple person belonging to an ordinary family, and in order to safeguard his future, became a member of a 200-gram gold B.C. scheme run by Rajesh Seth on his assurance. He was enrolled as member at serial no. 13. 5. At the time of initiation of the B.C., Rajesh Seth informed him that he was required to pay instalments for 15 months equivalent to the value of the gold. After completion of 15 months, when the revisionist approached Rajesh Seth Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shekhdidar Ali .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) and demanded his share under the B.C. scheme, neither was any amount returned nor was the gold delivered. It is further alleged that the son of Rajesh Seth abused him and extended threats to kill him. 6. All the aforesaid facts are within the knowledge of the revisionist and do not require any independent investigation. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced and perusal of the record, this Court finds that there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. 8. The criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. February 24, 2026 K.K. Maurya CRLR No. 1401 of 2026 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad