HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2751 of 2026 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The present criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 in Complaint Case No.11483 of 202, under Section 226 B.N.S.S. (Shivkumar vs. Dhirendra Trivedi and others) by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, has rejected the complaint case filed by the revisionist. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case a complaint was filed by the revisionist against the opposite party no.2 & 3 for abuse and threatening in which statement of complainant u/s 223 and other witnesses u/s 225 B.N.S.S. were recorded. Further submitted that the revisionist executed a conditional sale deed in favour of opposite party no.2 & 3 when he was in need of money regarding his treatment. Later on, when he was ready to make repayment of amount to opposite party no.2 & 3, they denied to accept the money and to return the land subject to conditional sale deed regarding which he filed a civil suit before the learned civil court which is still pending and the opposite parties are not appearing even before the learned civil court. Further submitted that when he asked opposite party no.2 & 3 to return the land after accepting the money, they abused him and also threatened to kill him that was the reason he filed the present complaint. The incident took place before the villagers those were examined before the learned court u/s 225 B.N.S.S. and then supported the version made by the complainant even though the learned trial court has not considered the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Hari Nath Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shivkumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) material on record but passed the order in question illegally, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court dated 20.01.2026 u/s 226 B.N.S.S. and allow the revision. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case no any date and time has been mentioned even in the complaint by the complainant regarding occurrence with him by opposite party no.2 & 3. When he was examined u/s 223 B.N.S.S. before the learned court even though he did not disclose any such time and likewise the witnesses Mahaveer & Babu have also not disclosed this fact even when their statements were recorded u/s 225 B.N.S.S. before the learned trial court. He also contends that the dispute between complainant and opposite party no.2 & 3 is purely of civil nature which cannot be given criminal color. Regarding the dispute a civil litigation is going on between the parties and remedy available to the revisionist is from the learned civil court. There is no any error in the order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned trial court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the contents of complaint, the statements of complainant and other witnesses as recorded u/s 223 & 225 B.N.S.S. and the order passed by learned trial court dated 20.02.2026 under Section 226 B.N.S.S., it transpires that there is dispute between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 & 3 regarding property in relation to which conditional sale deed was executed by the revisionist in favour of opposite party no.2 & 3 and they refused to accept money and return the property regarding which he filed a civil suit which is still pending before the learned civil court. In the complaint though there is allegation that the opposite party no.2 & 3 abused and threatened him to kill but there is no any specific date or time when incident is said to have taken place. Even in the statement u/s 223 B.N.S.S. the complainant has not disclosed such date and time. Likewise, the statement of PW-1 Mahaveer & PW-2 Babu were recorded u/s 225 B.N.S.S. but they have not disclosed any such date and time regarding the incident to have taken place with the revisionists by the opposite party no.2 & 3. In this way, the allegation made by the complainant appears to be vague and the dispute between both the parties is purely of civil nature regarding which there is civil litigation pending. The civil dispute cannot be permitted to be given criminal color. The learned trial court has considered all these facts while passing the order in question dated 20.01.2026 and also observations made by the Hon'ble CRLR No. 2751 of 2026 2 Supreme Court in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & others vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others AIR 1998 SC 128 and then passed the order in question. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. May 5, 2026 Ashok Gupta CRLR No. 2751 of 2026 3 (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad