ABDUL SALMAN KHAN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

   HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
   MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15438 of 2025

Abdul Salman Khan And 2 Others
                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Anjani Kumar, Gaurav Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prateek
Tyagi, learned AGA for State-respondent.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer
to issue a suitable order or direction to set aside the impugned
order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge/Fast Track (14th Finance Commission),
Varanasi, in Criminal Revision No. 276 of 2025 (Abdul
Salman Khan and others vs. State of U.P. and another), as well
as the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.
3/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in Complaint
Case No. 94612 of 2023 (Gayasuddin vs. Abdul Salman),
whereby the petitioners have been summoned under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC, Police Station
Dashashwamegh, District Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a sale
deed was executed in favour of the petitioner's father on
23.3.1957. On the strength of the said sale deed, the petitioner
came into possession of the house and became its owner. The
respondent filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
alleging that the sale deed dated 23.3.1957 is forged and that
the petitioner, on the basis of the said sale deed, got his name
mutated in his favour. It was further alleged that the petitioner
is a tenant of the said house and is now claiming ownership on
the basis of the sale deed dated 23.3.1957. It was submitted that
the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was
                                                 A227 No. 15438 of 2025
                         2

converted into Complaint Case No.94612 of 2023 (Gayasuddin
vs. Abdul Salman). The statements of the complainant and his
witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.,
and the petitioner was summoned to face trial for offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale deed executed
in favour of his father is of the year 1957 and bears the
signature of the Sub-Registrar, Varanasi. The respondent
produced a photostat copy of the sale deed by affixing the seal
of Sub-Registrar-II to create a false claim that the said sale
deed is forged. It was further submitted that the petitioner
sought information under the Right to Information Act and was
informed that no post of Sub-Registrar-II existed in the year
1957, and that the said post came into existence only after
1990. It was argued that the petitioner has been summoned on
the basis of false and baseless allegations, and there is no
material on record to show that the sale deed executed in the
year 1957 is forged. It was also submitted that the petitioner
had preferred Criminal Revision No.276 of 2025 (Abdul
Salman Khan and others vs. State of U.P. and another), which
was dismissed on 12.11.2025.

4. Sri Prateek Tyagi, learned AGA for the State-respondent,
submitted that the respondent has alleged in the complaint that
the petitioner got a forged sale deed executed in his favour in
respect of a house of which he is only a tenant.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order
passed by the learned Trial Court.

6. From the perusal of the application filed by the respondent
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was later converted into a
complaint, it appears that only a bald allegation has been made
against the petitioner that he forged a sale deed of the year
1957. No specific particulars have been disclosed from which it
can be inferred that the said sale deed is forged. A mere
allegation of forgery is not sufficient to constitute offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC. A person
making such an allegation is required to disclose material
particulars on the basis of which the Court may arrive at a
prima facie conclusion that fabrication or forgery has been
committed by the accused. In the absence of such material
                                                                                          A227 No. 15438 of 2025
                                                                  3

                                        particulars, a bald allegation alone cannot constitute an offence
                                        under the IPC.

                                        7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition
                                        deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. The
                                        impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Additional
                                        District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track (14th Finance
                                        Commission), Varanasi, in Criminal Revision No. 276 of 2025,
                                        as well as the impugned order dated 26.9.2024 passed by the
                                        Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief
                                        Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in Complaint Case No. 94612 of
                                        2023, are hereby set aside. Consequently, the entire
                                        proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case are quashed.
                                        May 6, 2026
                                        Mukesh
                                                                                     (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad