JASWANT SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5553 of 2025

Jaswant Singh
                                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                      :    Gyanendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)                      :    G.A.

Court No. - 89
              HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

1. Heard Sri Gyanendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner;
learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers to :-

     "(a). set aside the impugned order dated 20.03.2024, passed by the Chief
     Judicial Magistrate, Farrukahabd in complaint Case No.1135 of 2024,
     (Jaswant Singh versus Sualal and others), Police Station Maudarwaja,
     District Farrukhabad and impugned order dated 26.09.2024, passed by
     Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Third Additional District &
     Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Criminal Revision No.61 of 2024,
     (Jaswant Singh versus State of U.P. and others) (Annexure Nos.01 and 02
     to the petition) and further directed the learned Magistrate to summon the
     accused/respondents and to face the trial under the proper sections on the
     basis of allegations made in the complaint by the petitioner.

     (b). issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner,
     which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and
     circumstances of the case.

     (c). award the costs of petition in favour of the petitioner."

3. Brief facts given rise to the present case are that the petitioner has filed an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegation that the
petitioner has ancestral agricultural land and a residential house situated at
Nagla Gulariya. At present, the petitioner is residing along with his family in
Pune (Maharashtra). The petitioner is 60% visually impaired. The
petitioner's brother, Sualal, is a person of criminal disposition. Petitioner's
brother, Sualal along with his associates Rajendra Singh, Jaswant, Arvind
                                                              A227 No. 5553 of 2025
                                  2


Rajput and Ravendra Singh fraudulently executed sale deeds of the
petitioner's agricultural land and share of the ancestral house without any
consideration. Taking advantage of the petitioner's blindness, they took him
to Tehsil and got the said sale deeds executed. With the deliberate intention
of causing loss to the petitioner, they supported Sualal out of greed for
money. On the pretext of getting a certificate prepared to enable the
petitioner to receive benefits under the Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme, they
took the petitioner to the Tehsil, two or three times and got sale deeds
executed of the entire ancestral property. Maya Devi, wife of Sualal, was
also involved in the said acts. When the petitioner came to know from the
villagers that all his property had been sold by these persons, he questioned
them regarding the same. Thereupon, all the accused persons threatened to
kill him and stated that if he took any action in future, even his dead body
would not be traceable. The petitioner is under serious and imminent threat
to his life and property from the aforesaid accused persons. In relation to the
fraudulent grabbing of the petitioner's property and the threats to his life, the
petitioner approached the Police Station for registration of an FIR; however,
his report was not registered. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a written
complaint by registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad,
on 07.02.2023. Despite this, no action has been taken, due to which the
petitioner has approached the Court below and filed application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the said application has been treated as
complaint. After registering the said application as complaint, recorded the
Statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. thereafter, by impugned
order dated 20.03.2024, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukahabd has
rejected the said complaint. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the
revision and the same has also been rejected by impugned order dated
26.09.2024 by Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Third Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad. Hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is 60% visually
impaired and presently he is residing in Pune. His brother along with his
associates fraudulently executed the sale deed of his agricultural land as well
as share of the ancestral house and threatened to kill him if he took any
action in future. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has
dismissed the compliant in a summary manner which is not sustainable in
the eyes of law and not considered the facts of the case. The judgement cited
by the learned Magistrate is not applicable in the petitioner's case because
petitioner's case is different nature and it is not a civil dispute whereas it is a
                                                                                               A227 No. 5553 of 2025
                                                                    3

                                    forgery nature. It is further submitted that the impugned orders have been
                                    passed by the Courts below are illegally, arbitrary, without application of
                                    judicial mind because the Courts below have ignored the documentary
                                    evidence available on record as well as statements of the witnesses and
                                    treating the petitioner's case as civil nature.

                                    5. Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid arguments and submitted that the
                                    impugned orders are just and proper, therefore, there are no need to interfere.

                                    6. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the petitioner in his
                                    complaint stated that petitioner's brother-Sualal along with his associates
                                    fraudulently executed the sale deed of his agricultural land as well as share
                                    of the ancestral house and threatened to kill him if he took any action in
                                    future. A perusal of the record also reveals that the petitioner in his own
                                    complaint and statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. do not specify the date
                                    on which the private opposite parties have executed the sale deed, nor has a
                                    copy of the deed been filed with the Court below. The petitioner in his own
                                    complaint and statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. also do not mention the
                                    date on which he became aware that the private opposite parties had
                                    executed the sale deed of his agricultural land and ancestral house. The
                                    complainant has already filed a suit in the civil court to cancel the deed in
                                    question. It appears prima facie that the case is civil in nature. The present
                                    case involves a property dispute between the petitioner and the private
                                    opposite parties and going through the impugned order dated 20.03.2024,
                                    passed by learned Magistrate on the complaint and order dated 26.09.2024,
                                    passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, it shows that both the
                                    Courts below after due analysis of all the documents produced on the record
                                    and assigned cogent reasons in passing the orders and rightfully rejected the
                                    complaint as well as the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner.

                                    7. In the petition before this Court, the petitioner could not succeed to raise
                                    any ground to interfered with the orders passed by the Courts below,
                                    therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

                                    8. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

                                    February 4, 2026
                                    I.A.Siddiqui
                                                                                   (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad