HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1413 of 2026 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Basti in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1805 of 2023 (Ghanshyam Vs. Rajit Ram and others) U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Paikoliya, District Basti whereby the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against opposite party no. 2/Ex Village Pradhan and opposite party no. 3/ Secretary Gram Panchayat, Gram Sabha Baderiya Kunwar. All the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were supported by the enquiry report. It is alleged in the complaint that the revisionist is a resident of Sakin-Baderiya Kunwar Post-Thanha Khas, Tehsil-Haraiya, Police Station Paikoliya, District Basti and is an aggrieved person. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are government servants. 4. It is further alleged that the previous Pradhan, Rajiram during his tenure in 2020–21, approved the construction of a CC road measuring 80 meters in length and three meters in width. The former Gram Pradhan, in collusion with opposite party nos. 2 and 3 withdrew an amount of Rs. 3,24,000/-. However, his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was not registered. Hence, he preferred the present criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that a joint report was submitted by the J.E. and the Regional Incharge stating that Chandrabhan Sharma had made a complaint alleging that no CC road had been constructed. However, the former Gram Pradhan produced evidence to show that the CC road had indeed been constructed. The officials further stated that the matter was beyond their jurisdiction to enquire into and, Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ganesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ghanshyam .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) therefore, recommended further action. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that an order dated 12.10.2022 was passed directing an enquiry and submission of a report. He further submitted that the report of the Block Development Officer stated that the CC road had not been constructed, whereas such investigation was not within their purview. 7. Learned A.G.A. contended that although the revisionist filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., he had no locus standi to do so. It was further submitted that the learned trial court passed a proper and justified order and, therefore, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 8. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned trial court specifically held that if there was any irregularity, no proper enquiry had been conducted. The matter was beyond their jurisdiction and purview; however, they recommended further enquiry. In view thereof, if there has been any misappropriation of public funds, the same has to be decided by the competent authority, as the application of the revisionist/complainant was considered at the appropriate level and a recommendation for investigation was made. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist/complainant was in the nature of a private complaint, and the competent government authorities had taken cognizance of the matter and recommended further investigation. 9. In view of the above, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. February 25, 2026 M. Tarik CRLR No. 1413 of 2026 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad