Allahabad High Court

SHRI NATH GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: SANDEEP CHAUDHARY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

Allegations of forgery must be pursued under Section 340 CrPC, not under Section 156(3), and therefore the lower courts' orders are upheld.

Summary

Petitioner Shri Nath Gupta sought a direction under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to register an FIR alleging that the respondents had forged signatures on a compromise deed filed in a civil suit. The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application, holding that the dispute over the alleged forged signatures should be decided by the civil court. The petitioner appealed through a criminal revision, which was also dismissed. The High Court held that allegations of fabrication or use of forged documents in judicial proceedings are to be addressed under Section 340 of the CrPC, not through a Section 156(3) application. Consequently, the High Court upheld both lower court orders and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is the appropriate remedy for allegations of forged documents in a civil proceeding.
Whether the lower courts erred in refusing to register an FIR on the basis of alleged forgery.
Whether the proper remedy for such allegations is under Section 340 CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 340

Subjects

Criminal Procedure Code
Section 156(3)
Section 340
Forgery
FIR registration
Civil jurisdiction
Revision
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6338 of 2025

Shri Nath Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Dwivedi, Suresh Chandra
Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar, holding brief of Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi,
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 order dated 20.01.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2024 (Shri Nath
Gupta versus State of U.P. and others) passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Judge (POCSO) Room No.2, Prayagraj
and order dated 20.03.2024 rejecting petitioner application under section 156
(3) Cr.P.C passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had moved an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Special CJM,
Prayagraj, seeking a direction for registration of an FIR against the
respondents, alleging that they had fabricated a forged compromise and filed
the same in a civil case pending before the Civil Judge (Senior
Division)/FTC. It was submitted that the signatures on the alleged
compromise deed were not those of the petitioner and had been forged by
the respondents. However, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was
dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.03.2024. Aggrieved
by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2024
(Shri Nath Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others), which too was dismissed on
20.01.2025. Learned counsel submitted that both the courts below failed to
properly consider the allegations made by the petitioner. It was further
submitted that fabrication and forgery of documents constitute serious
offences and ought to have been duly examined by the courts below. Hence,
both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
A227 No. 6338 of 2025
2

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The order
dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned CJM, Prayagraj, records a finding
that the disputed question relating to alleged forged signatures on the
compromise deed can appropriately be adjudicated by the court where the
civil proceedings are pending. The said finding does not suffer from any
infirmity.

5. It is well settled that where allegations pertain to fabrication or use of
forged documents in judicial proceedings, the appropriate remedy lies under
Section 340 Cr.P.C., and not by way of an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.

6. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld. The present petition is
dismissed.

May 5, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…