RAJ BAHADUR YADAVversusState of UP AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

        MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14764 of 2024

Raj Bahadur Yadav
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                      :   Vikas Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)                      :   G.A.

Court No. - 89
                     HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA
for the State are present.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside
the impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2024 passed by the Learned
Special Additional Sessions Judge (POSCO) 1st Bhadohi at Gyanpur in
Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2024 (Raj Bahadur Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and
others) and order dated 6.3.2024 passed by the Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magaistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Criminal Misc. Application No.
783 of 2023 (Raj Bahadur Yadav Vs. Daya Shankar and others).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the respondent was dismissed by the learned
ACGM, Bhadohi at Gyanpur on the ground that the allegations were against
an army personnel and, therefore, the concerned court had no jurisdiction to
entertain any criminal complaint against him. Aggrieved by the order dated
06.03.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner preferred
Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2024 (Raj Bahadur Yadav vs. State of U.P. and
another). However, the said criminal revision was also dismissed on
5.10.2024. The learned revisional court observed that if the petitioner had
any knowledge regarding forgery allegedly committed by the respondent for
obtaining employment in the army, he ought to have approached the
competent authorities concerned with such grievance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had sought
information under the RTI Act on two occasions, which revealed that the
respondent had qualified the matriculation examination twice. According to
the information obtained, the respondent first appeared in the matriculation
                                                          A227 No. 14764 of 2024
                                2

examination in the year 1986 and obtained a certificate from Netaji
Rajnarayan Inter College, Sarbatkhani, Bhadohi. Thereafter, he again
appeared in the matriculation examination from Intermediate College,
Babusarai, Bhadohi and passed the same in the year 1996. It was submitted
that the respondent obtained employment in the army on the basis of the
high school certificate obtained in the year 1986.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that although both matriculation
certificates are not presently available with the petitioner, the information
obtained under the RTI Act prima facie indicates that the respondent
obtained two matriculation certificates with a gap of about ten years, thereby
suggesting concealment of his actual age for obtaining employment in the
army. It was contended that the allegations made in the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. required proper investigation. Learned counsel lastly
submitted that both the courts below erred in dismissing the application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction merely
because the respondent was an army personnel. According to him, the
findings recorded by both the courts regarding lack of jurisdiction are per se
illegal and liable to be set aside.

6. Learned AGA submitted that a property dispute exists between the parties
and the petitioner appears to be motivated by personal enmity. It was
contended that due to such enmity, the petitioner filed a frivolous complaint
against the respondent. It was further submitted that if the petitioner had any
information regarding the alleged forgery committed by the respondent, it
was incumbent upon him to approach the competent authorities concerned.
Therefore, the orders passed by the courts below do not suffer from any
infirmity.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court is
of the view that dismissal of the petitioner's application solely on the ground
that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against an army personnel is not proper.
Accordingly, both the impugned orders dated 5.10.2024 and 6.3.2024 are set
aside.

8. The learned trial court is directed to restore Criminal Misc. Application
No. 783 of 2023 (Raj Bahadur Yadav vs. Daya Shankar and others) to its
original number and pass a fresh order in accordance with law after
considering the material available on record.

9. The petition is accordingly allowed.

May 12, 2026
                                                  A227 No. 14764 of 2024
                                              3
                                    Ujjawal

                                                  (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad