HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7739 of 2025 Reserved Court No. - 88 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Om Narayan Pandey, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rajiv Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.14, Shahjahanpur in Complaint Case No.4947 of 2023 (Lalu Singh vs. Amit Chaurasiya), Police Station Madnapur, District Shahjahanpur. 3. By the impugned order, learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint of the complainant/revisionist under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without application of judicial mind and is against the weight of evidence on record. It is further submitted that, from the evidence led on behalf of the complainant and the CCTV footage of the spot, a prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the proposed accused (opposite party Nos. 2 to 9). 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the revision and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It is submitted that the revisionist was arrested in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act and, being annoyed with the police party, has filed the present Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Om Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Lalu Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 8 Others .....Opposite Party(s) complaint to falsely implicate them. It is further submitted that the evidence led by the complainant/revisionist was not sufficient to summon the proposed accused. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the present revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is clear that, by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The case of the revisionist is that he had lodged a criminal case against the then police officials of Police Station Madnapur under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in which the police officials and the Circle Officer were putting pressure upon the revisionist to compromise the matter, and had threatened that failing which he would be implicated in a criminal case. On 07.09.2022, the proposed accused came to his shop in a WagonR car and a motorcycle, abused and looted his mobile phone as well as money from his cash box (galla). When he protested, they misbehaved with him and forcibly took him to the Police Station, and was falsely implicated in a criminal case. He further claims that he has video footage of the alleged incident. 7. In view of aforesaid facts, the revisionist had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint by the concerned Magistrate. After recording the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the complaint was dismissed by the impugned order under Section 203 Cr.P.C. With regard to the summoning of an accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the law is well settled that the Magistrate has not to act in a mechanical manner, but has to apply his judicial mind to the facts and should not be carried away by the statement of witnesses recorded on behalf of the complainant. 9. In this regard the Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749. Paragraph-28 of the aforesaid judgment has observed as follows:- "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into CRLR No. 7739 of 2025 2 motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused." 10. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Magistrate has dismissed the complaint on the ground that, from the CCTV footage of the alleged incident, prima facie, no such incident appears to have taken place. The CCTV footage shows that some persons in plain clothes arrived at the shop in a car, entered the shop and soon thereafter came out and left the place. It is not visible from the CCTV footage that the revisionist was forcibly taken away in the car. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the revisionist/complainant had examined the witnesses, who failed to disclose the source of their knowledge that the persons in plain clothes who came in a private car were police personnel. Therefore, their testimony was not reliable. A perusal of impugned order shows that the Magistrate has also observed that, from the electronic evidence, the alleged incident does not appear to have taken place and it appears that, after being challaned under the N.D.P.S. Act, the complainant being aggrieved, has filed this complaint. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, or perversity. Consequently, no interference by this Court is warranted. The present revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed. September 18, 2026 Amit CRLR No. 7739 of 2025 3 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad