Allahabad High Court
SHARIK KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 15 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the discharge orders of the trial and revisional courts.
Summary
The petitioner, Sharik Khan, filed a petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside the discharge orders dated 09.11.2022 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and 26.09.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case involving alleged offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120‑B IPC. The petitioner alleged that the trial court failed to appreciate the FIR allegations and did not hear him, resulting in an erroneous discharge of the accused. The State contended that the trial court had carefully examined the evidence and correctly concluded that no offence was made out, a view affirmed by the revisional court. The High Court examined the records and found that both the trial and revisional courts had applied the law correctly and that there was no irregularity or illegality in their orders. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the discharge of the accused. The decision underscores that the High Court will not interfere under Article 227 where the lower courts have exercised proper judicial discretion. The petitioner’s claim of irreparable loss was therefore not entertained.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in discharging the accused under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120‑B IPC.
- Whether the revisional court erred in upholding the discharge order.
- Whether the petitioner’s right to be heard was violated.
- Whether the High Court should intervene under Article 227 to set aside the lower courts' orders.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 420, 468, 471
Subjects
- Article 227
- discharge of accused
- revision
- Criminal Procedure
- IPC sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B
- High Court
- petition dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1812 of 2026
Sharik Khan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 15 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gopal Krishna Pandey, Udai Singh
Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Manu Khare
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Gopal Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Manu Khare, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 16 and Sri Bade Lal
Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner- Sharik Khan, with the prayer to set aside the impugned
order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12,
Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No.540 of 2022 (Sharik Khan vs. Vijay Mehta
& others) as well as impugned order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Criminal Case No.369 of 2018 (State vs.
Rajiv Jain & others) in Case Crime No.354/2016, under sections 420, 468,
471, 120-B IPC, police station-Sadar Bazar, district-Saharanpur whereby
discharged respondent No.2 to 16 from Criminal Case No.369 of 2018 (State
vs. Rajiv Jain & others) in Case Crime No.354/2016, under sections 420, 468,
471, 120-B IPC, police station-Sadar Bazar, district-Saharanpur during the
pendency of instant petition before this Hon'ble court so that the justice may
be done; otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And /
or pass such other order and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The facts of the case are that the respondents were an accused in a matter
in which at the stage of discharge an application for discharge was moved by
them which was allowed vide order dated 09.11.2022 by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Saharapur and they were discharged of the charges levelled
against them in Case Crime No. 154 / 2016, under Sections 420, 468, 471,
120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur. A revision was
preferred against the said order by the petitioner which stood dismissed vide
A227 No. 1812 of 2026
2
judgement and order dated 26.09.2025.
5. A first information information report was lodged in the matter by the
petitioner on 04.05.2016 against the accused alleging therein that Lal Chand
father of the accused Ram Kumar had purchased 60 sq. yard of plot through
two sale-deeds on 26.11.1959. After the death of Lal Chand his heirs
executed a power of attorney in favour of Satendra Kumar Jain and Vijay
Kumar Mehta on 21.06.2004 which was registered. On the basis of registered
power of attorney the said property holders sold land measuting 432.96 sq
meter apart from 60 sq. yard in favour of the accused.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the
complainant in the aforesaid case. It is submitted that the trial court concerned
while considering the discharge application of the accused has vide order
dated 09.11.2022 allowed the same and discharged the accused by giving a
finding that no offence is made out against the accused which is an incorrect
appreciation of the same in as much as there are allegations levlled in the first
information information report against the accused. It is submitted that
identically the revisional court also vide its judgement and order dated
26.09.2025 dismissed the said revision by upholding the order of the trial court
which is also against the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the
petitioner being the complainant was not heard by the trial court. Whenever he
contacted the office of the trial court it was informed that the file is not
traceable. It is submitted that the revisional court although heard him but
proper appreciation in the matter was not done and in a very routine manner
the revision was dismissed. It is submitted that thus the petition be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the State has been heard.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it
is evident that the trial court concerned in its order impugned dated
09.11.2022 has meticulously considered the facts of the case and the
evidence collected during investigation. It then came to the conclusion that no
offence whatsoever is made out against the accused and thus discharged
them. A revision against the same also stood dismissed by the revisional court
by a well reasoned and well considered judgement and order. Both the orders
do no suffer from any irregularity or illegality.
9. The present petition is dismissed.
February 12, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…