RAJEEV KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
               MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2981 of 2025

Rajeev Kumar
                                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

State Of U.P. And 6 Others
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                     :    Perdeep Kumar Vishnoi
Counsel for Respondent(s)                     :    C.S.C.

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

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Kumar Singh,
learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed with the following main prayers :-

"a. to issue a suitable order or direction to set aside the impugned order dt. 30.5.2024
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar
in Complaint Case No. 19408 of 2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Kamal and others, whereby
the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint of petitioner as well as impugned
order dt. 14.2.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court
No. 4, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No. 228 of 2024 Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. and others, by which the learned lower Revisional Court dismissed the Criminal
Revision of petitioner and affirmed the impugned order dt. 30.5.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar;

b. to issue a suitable order or direction commanding the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar to hear the matter afresh and pass
appropriate orders in Complaint Case No. 19408 of 2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Kamal
and others."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of petitioner
late Radhey Lal @ Radhey Shyam was adopted by one Sardar Singh in
his childhood. The father of petitioner took care of Sardar Singh after
being adopted and even performed his last rites after his death. The fact
that father of petitioner was adopted by late Sardar Singh was accepted by
                                                        A227 No. 2981 of 2025
                               2


Jagvati, daughter of Sardar Singh, during proceeding in a court. However,
Kamal and Vinay, both sons of Jagvati, fabricated forged death certificate
of Sardar Sigh and tried to misuse it in revenue proceedings in order to
claim themselves as legal heirs of Sardar Singh. Even an attempt to take
illegal possession of the house of the petitioner on the strength of forged
death certificate was also made by respondent nos.2 and 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was converted into
Complaint Case No. 19408 of 2023 (Rajeev Kumar Vs. Kamal and
others) and the said complaint was dismissed on 30.5.2024. Learned
counsel submitted that a report was called by the concerned trial court at
the time of filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. from the
concerned Police Station. The said police report clearly mentions that
certain dispute between the petitioner and the respondents pertaining to
ancestral house is pending and he has alleged that private respondents had
executed a sale-deed on basis of the said forged death certificate. It has
also been mentioned by the Sub-Inspector of concerned Police Station
that upon verification of the death certificate from Nagar Panchayat, it
came to the knowledge that the said death certificate was forged. Learned
counsel submitted that despite such cogent report submitted by the
concerned Police Station after verifying the allegations, his complaint was
dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 30.5.2024.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.5.2024, the petitioner
preferred Criminal Revision No. 228 of 2024 (Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. and others), which too was dismissed on 14.2.2025. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that both courts have ignored to consider that
alleged death certificate claimed by the respondents was a forged
certificate which also finds corroboration from the police report submitted
during pendency of his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Learned
counsel, therefore, submitted that both orders are patently illegal and are
liable to be set aside.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. It is very much apparent from the perusal of the application filed under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that the alleged forged death certificate is a matter
                                                                                               A227 No. 2981 of 2025
                                                                    3


                                    of dispute between the parties since 1999 at the time of consolidation
                                    proceedings. Even the said death certificate has been challenged in certain
                                    other civil proceedings. Therefore, the finding recorded by the concerned
                                    trial court that genuineness of the said death certificate can only be
                                    adjudicated by the concerned court before whom the litigations are
                                    pending, is in accordance with law. The allegations raised by the
                                    petitioner pertain to year 1999 and hence when said disputed death
                                    certificate is under challenge in various litigations, then initiating criminal
                                    proceeding upon the basis of mere allegations is not proper.

                                    8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is dismissed. The
                                    impugned order 30.5.2024 passed by the trail court as well as the order
                                    dated 14.2.2025 passed by the revisional court are upheld.



                                                                                              (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    SK




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad