HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5551 of 2026 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in Misc. Case No. 4179 of 2025 (Arjun Singh vs. Alok Rathor and Others). By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the revisionist under Section 173(4) of the BNSS on the ground that the revisionist was not appearing and it appeared that he did not wish to press the application. 3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that the above finding of the learned Trial Court is off the record. He has filed a certified copy of the order-sheet and submits that a perusal of the order-sheet shows that on each and every date, the Counsel for the revisionist/applicant was present in the Court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has committed illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer, but he fairly conceded that the order-sheet reveals that learned counsel for the applicant remained present before the Court on almost all the dates of hearing. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the impugned order was passed on the ground that the applicant/revisionist was not interested in pressing the application and, on the last date, a last opportunity was also given to the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Bandana Singh, Ved Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Arjun Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) applicant/revisionist. A perusal of the certified copy of the order-sheet reveals that learned counsel for the applicant remained present on almost all the occasions before the court and, on 05.06.2026, a report was called for from the senior officers of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5, and the next date fixed was 24.06.2026. On 24.06.2026, the Presiding Officer of the court was on leave, and the next date fixed was 08.07.2026. On 08.07.2026, the impugned order was passed without any mention as to whether the report called for was submitted before the court or not. Therefore, the finding of the learned Magistrate that the applicant was not interested in pressing the application is not substantiated by the evidence on record. Hence, the learned Magistrate ought to have given another opportunity to the applicant to press the application. The impugned order was passed hurriedly without giving sufficient opportunity to the applicant. 6. In view of the above, the present revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.07.2026 is hereby set aside, and the Trial Court is directed to decide the aforesaid application afresh and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to learned counsel for the revisionist. September 23, 2026 Amit CRLR No. 5551 of 2026 2 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad