Arvind Chaudhary Alias Kalua Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Revisionist Arvind Chaudhary Alias Kalua by means of present Criminal Revision has approached this Court challenging the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) F.T.C. Court No. 1/Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred as Jurisdictional Magistrate) in complaint Case No. 17833 of 2024 (Arvind Chaudhary @ Kalua Vs. Omveer Singh and others), Police Station Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad wherein the Jurisdictional Magistrate dismissed the complaint of the revisionist u/s 203 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Aggrieved with that order the present criminal revision has been filed on the ground that the Magistrate has committed error while passing the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed without considering the facts in right way with ulterior motive and prayed for allowing the criminal revision and setting aside the impugned order.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.

¶12

Though notice issued to opposite party nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 has been duly served but inspite of service of notice no one on their behalf is present to oppose the present criminal revision.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist submits that

¶14

CRLR No. 2911 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

opposite party no. 2 had lodged an FIR against the revisionist and his family members under sections 504, 506, 452, 323, 354, 307 IPC, Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh. It is further submitted that in pursuance thereof, several attempts were made by the police to arrest the revisionist but his neighbors prevented him from accompanying them, due to which the revisionist suffered humiliation and his reputation in society was seriously tarnished. After conclusion of statutory investigation, the name of revisionist was exonerated and section 307 IPC was also deleted. The aforesaid fact were duly supported by the revisionist in his statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. as well as by PW-1 and PW-2 in their statements u/s 202 Cr.P.C., however the trial court failed to consider the same and dismissed the complaint filed by the revisionist. It is thus contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶17

Per contra learned AGA appearing on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1 has vehemently opposed the present criminal revision and submitted that a bare reading of complaint version along with statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. does not disclose commission of any offence. It is thus submitted that the trial court has rightly passed the impugned order and the same warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its revsisional jurisdiction.

¶18

When confronted with above the learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same.

¶19

Upon perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the Judicial Magistrate has observed that no cogent material or evidence regarding any defamation of revisionist had been brought on record before the Court. The impugned order reflects due consideration of the entire material available on record and cannot be said to be mechanical in nature.

¶20

In view of aforesaid conspectus, I am of the view that no interference with the impugned order is warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The impugned has been passed in

¶21

CRLR No. 2911 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

accordance with law and suffers from neither illegality nor perversity.

¶24