Shiv Lal And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

1. Called in revised. None has appeared on behalf of private respondent to press this petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shi R.K. Singh, learned for the State-respondent.

3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue an order or direction for calling for the record of the case and set aside the impugned the impugned judgement and order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Session Judge, Chitrakoot in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2025, "Ram Siya Vs. Shiv Lal and others" (Annexure no. 1 to petition).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 2 instituted Complaint No. 96/IX/2018 (Ram Siya vs. Shiv Lal and others), wherein the petitioners were summoned to face trial for offences under Sections 504, 352, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. The said complaint was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by exercising its power under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Respondent no. 2 thereafter challenged the order dated 26.09.2024 by filing Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2025 (Ram Siya vs. Shiv Lal and others). The said criminal revision was allowed by the impugned order dated 30.10.2025, and the order dated 26.09.2024 was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no revision lies against an order passed under Section 256 Cr.P.C., as such an order amounts to acquittal. Since the order of acquittal is passed in a complaint case, the only remedy against such an order lies by way of an appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. It was contended that entertaining a criminal revision against an order passed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. is illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence, the order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2025 is liable to be set aside.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2025 (Ram Siya vs. Shiv Lal and others).

6. From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the complaint of respondent no. 2 was dismissed by the learned Trial Court due to his non-appearance. The learned Revisional Court has noted that the summoning order under Section 204 Cr.P.C., passed by the learned Trial Court, was challenged by the present petitioners/accused persons before this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being Application No. 26148 of 2018 (Shiv Lal and 8 others vs. State of U.P. and another). This Court, by its order, had stayed the proceedings of the complaint. In the meantime, the said stay became infructuous in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299. It has further been noted that the learned Magistrate failed to take into account the later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 SCC 207, whereby the earlier judgment in Asian Resurfacing (supra) was overruled. On this basis, the Revisional Court set aside the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate.

7. The aforesaid circumstances indicate that the stay order operating in favour of the petitioners had, at the relevant time, become infructuous in light of the judgment in Asian Resurfacing (supra), and the learned Trial Court, relying upon the said judgment, dismissed the complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to note that the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate was subsequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra). Therefore, when the entire circumstances are considered cumulatively, it appears that the approach adopted by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the complaint by relying on Asian Resurfacing (supra) was not correct. It has been rightly held by regisional Court hat it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to issue notice to the complainant before passing such order.. The earlier judgment in Asian Resurfacing (supra) was relied upon at a time when it had already been overruled by the subsequent judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra). The totality of the circumstances reveals that the respondent-complainant was not at fault for his non-appearance before the Court, as a stay order was operating in favour of the present petitioners. It further reflects that the complaint was dismissed on a technical ground. The said technical ground, namely the existence of a stay order which was deemed to be vacated in the light of the judgment passed in Asian Resurfacing (supra), demonstrates that the respondent-complainant suffered without any fault on his part due to a subsequent change in the legal position.

8. So far as the contention that an appeal lies against an order passed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the said proposition is correct. However, the same cannot be applied in the peculiar facts of the present case, as the non-appearance of the complainant was not attributable to him, but rather to an error on the part of the learned Trial Court. A person who suffers due to an erroneous order of the Court cannot be left remediless. Therefore, merely because an appeal would lie against an order under Section 256 Cr.P.C., the revisional order cannot be interfered with when the revision has been entertained and allowed to remedy a manifest injustice.

9. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

May 7, 2026

Mukesh