Dismissed¶27

Rajkumar Alias Raju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC19 Aug 2025CRLR/4125/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision dismissed; application under Section 173(4) BNSS for direction to lodge FIR rejected; order of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut upheld as well reasoned and not perverse; no allegation of demand or acceptance of bribe; application said to be filed to create pressure; opposite parties no.2 to 6 public servants; Police Station Modinagar, District Ghaziabad; Criminal Misc.Case No.1052 of 2024 (Rajkumar Vs. Pooja Gupta and others).

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 24.4.2025 is a well reasoned order. ¶15

Rajkumar Alias Raju Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 24.4.2025 dismissing the revisionist's application under Section 173(4) BNSS is illegal and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 24.4.2025 is a well reasoned order.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

In the application moved by the revisionist there was neither any allegation of demand of bribe nor its acceptance, and it reflected that the application under Section 173(4) BNSS was filed only with intention to create pressure.

¶25

Key takeaways

The finding recorded by the court below cannot be said to be perverse.ratio¶25
This Court finds merit in the learned AGA's argument that opposite parties no.2 to 6 are public servants and, given the manner in which the revisionist tried to implicate them through the Section 173(4) BNSS application, the court below committed no illegality in passing the impugned order.ratio¶26
There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 24.4.2025; the instant revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sameer Jain, J.) dismissed Criminal Revision No. 4125 of 2025 by which Rajkumar alias Raju Chaudhary sought setting aside of the order dated 24.4.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Special Court No.2 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut, rejecting his application under Section 173(4) BNSS praying for a direction to the Station House Officer, Police Station Modinagar, District Ghaziabad to lodge an FIR against private respondents no.2 to 8. Upholding the impugned order as well reasoned and not perverse, the High Court noted that the application contained neither any allegation of demand of bribe nor its acceptance and appeared to have been filed only with intention to create pressure; further, since opposite parties no.2 to 6 were public servants whom the revisionist sought to implicate, the court below had committed no illegality.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142399

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4125 of 2025 Revisionist :- Rajkumar Alias Raju Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Aditya Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Parijat Srivastava, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Aditya Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.

¶6

The instant revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 24.4.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Special Court No.2 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut in Criminal Misc.Case No.1052 of 2024 (Rajkumar Vs. Pooja Gupta and others) by which application U/s 173(4) BNSS has been rejected and further the court concerned may be directed to direct the Station House Officer, Police Station Modinagar, District Ghaziabad to lodge an FIR against private respondents no.2 to 8 and investigate the matter.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist filed an application before the court concerned under Section 173(4) BNSS with the prayer to give a direction to lodge FIR against opposite parties no.2 to 8 but his application has been dismissed by the court concerned vide impugned order dated 24.4.2025.

¶8

He further submits that the impugned order dated 24.4.2025 is illegal. He next submits that from the perusal of the application moved by revisionist it reflects that cognizable offence against opposite parties no.2 to86 are clearly made out but in spite of that court concerned dismissed the application filed by revisionist.

¶9

He further submits that opposite parties no.2 to 6 were public servants and they along with opposite parties no.7 and 8 committed the offence with regard to property of the revisionist and this fact is evident from the application filed by revisionist but in spite of that court concerned passed the

¶10

CRLR No. 4125 of 2025

¶11

¶12

impugned order which is wholly illegal.

¶13

He further submits that law is settled that if application under Section 173(4) BNSS discloses cognizable offence then a direction should be given to register an FIR.

¶14

He further submits that therefore impugned order dated 24.4.2025 is illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 24.4.2025 and it is well reasoned order.

¶16

Learned AGA further submits that prima facie even from the application moved by revisionist it reflects that he only due to personal grudge wanted to implicate opposite parties no.2 to 8.

¶17

He next submits that even from the impugned order dated 24.4.2025 it reflects that while dismissing the application of the revisionist court concerned categorically observed that there is no direct or indirect allegation of either demand of bribe or receiving the bribe.

¶18

He next submits that even opposite parties no.2 to 6 are the public servants and merely on the basis of such allegations made in the application FIR should not be lodged against them.

¶19

He next submits that therefore, instant revision filed by revisionist is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶21

Revisionist moved an application under Section 173(4) BNSS but court concerned dismissed his application vide impugned order dated 24.4.2025.

¶22

From the impugned order dated 24.4.2025 it reflects that it is well reasoned order and while dismissing the application of the revisionist moved under Section 173(4) BNSS court concerned categorically observed

¶23

CRLR No. 4125 of 2025

¶24

¶25

that in the application moved by revisionist there is neither any allegation of demand of bribe nor its acceptance and it reflects that only with intention to create pressure revisionist filed application under Section 173(4) BNSS and considering the application moved by revisionist finding recorded by the court concerned cannot be said to be perverse.

¶26

Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned AGA that opposite parties no.2 to 6 are public servants and the manner in which revisionist tried to implicate them by moving an application under Section 173(4) BNSS it cannot be said that while passing the impugned order court concerned committed any illegality.

¶27

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 24.4.2025 and the instant revision filed by revisionist is devoid of merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶28

Order Date :- 20.8.2025/SKM

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajkumar Alias Raju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Alias Raju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases