HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5721 of 2026 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vindehswari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This Criminal Revision under Section 438/442 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNSS') has been filed against impugned order dated 04.08.2026 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jewar, Gautam Budh Nagar in Misc. Case No. 123 of 2026 (Durgesh Vs. Gajendra Sharma and others). By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the application of the revisionist, which was filed under Section 173(4) BNSS on the ground that the same is not maintainable, as the applicant has not disclosed, what offence has been committed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and from the contents of the application, prima facie, cognizable offence was made out. It is further submitted that opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have committed fraud in a proceeding before the Tehsildar concerned and in this regard one Jugendra had filed an affidavit before the concerned court stating that his signatures were obtained by fraud. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that under Section 195 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 215 BNSS), it is the court concerned or its officer, who can initiate proceedings with regard to Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anoop Kumar Sharma, Vindeshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Durgesh Kaushik .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) any offence of perjury or fabricating false evidence, committed in a proceedings of the case, as such, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity or infirmity. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist admits that the matter relates to the proceedings, which is pending before the Tehsildar concerned and the contention of the revisionist is that fraud has been played upon the court, though the contents of the application do not clearly disclose any such averment. 6. In view of the above, the concerned court is at liberty to take appropriate action, in case, it finds that any fraud or perjury has been committed in relation to the court proceedings by any of the parties. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. This Criminal Revision is, accordingly, disposed of. September 23, 2026 Subham CRLR No. 5721 of 2026 2 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad