Allahabad High Court
Ejaj Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 April, 2026
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:96569
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2774 of 2026
Ejaj Ahmad
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Sunil Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
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 a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 16, Jaunpur in Case No. 319 of 2023 (Ali Iftekhar Vs. State), arising out of Case Crime No. 268 of 2022, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Shahganj, District Jaunpur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by Ali Iftekhar against the revisionist on which the learned Magistrate passed an order to lodge the F.I.R. and investigate the case and it was also directed that if the case is found false during the course of investigation then the police will follow the procedure as provided under Section 182 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. He further submits that after investigation the case was not found to be established, as a result final report was filed but no report under Section 182 Cr.P.C. was sent by the police. Final report was accepted by the learned court. An application was moved by the revisionist before the learned court to proceed against the opposite party no. 2 under Section 182 Cr.P.C. but the learned court has rejected the application by order dated 16.02.2026 illegally and without considering the material on record, therefore, request to set it aside and allow the revision.
Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case though there was direction by the learned Magistrate to the I.O. to proceed against the informant/complainant in accordance with law under Section 182 Cr.P.C. if the case was found to be false. During the course of investigation the case was not found to be established, as a result final report was filed by the I.O. but no report under Section 182 Cr.P.C. was submitted that was the reason F.R. was accepted by the learned court and no proceedings were followed under Section 182 Cr.P.C. Since there was no report by the I.O. under Section 182 Cr.P.C. therefore the Magistrate was not bound to proceed under Section 182 Cr.P.C. As per provisions contained under Section 195 Cr.P.C. no cognizance can be taken unless there is a report by the police to whom such information was given that was false. The learned trial court has rejected the application moved by the revisionist without committing any error of law.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., the order passed by the learned trial court dated 16.02.2026 and perusal of record, it appears that after investigation final report was filed by the I.O. but no any report under Section 182 Cr.P.C. was filed by him that was the reason learned court concerned did not proceed under Section 182 Cr.P.C. In absence of such report by the I.O. the Magistrate cannot proceed under Section 182 Cr.P.C. at this stage. The learned court has considered all these facts while passing the order dated 16.02.2026 in question. There appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is, hereby, dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) April 29, 2026 Suraj Srivastav