Allahabad High Court
FARUKH ALIAS NARGIS KINNARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The dispute is a personal civil matter, not a criminal offence, and the lower courts' orders are upheld.
Summary
The petitioner, a transgender individual, filed a petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside orders of the Sessions Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that dismissed his application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging extortion over a demanded 'badhai' amount. He claimed the respondents were threatening him to pay Rs.50,000 per month and that the lower courts failed to consider the criminal nature of the complaint. The State argued that the matter was a private dispute over the distribution of 'badhai' money, arising from a written compromise, and did not prima facie constitute a criminal offence. The High Court examined the allegations and concluded that the dispute was essentially a personal civil matter, not an extortion case, and found no perversity in the lower courts' findings. Consequently, the Court upheld the orders of both the trial and revisional courts and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the dispute over the 'badhai' amount amounts to a criminal offence such as extortion under the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside the orders of the subordinate courts.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
Subjects
- Article 227
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 156(3)
- extortion
- personal dispute
- transgender rights
- badhai
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7381 of 2025
Farukh Alias Nargis Kinnar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.K. Rai, 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 prayer :-
"i) Set-aside the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge
Shahjahanpur in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2024 (Farukh @ Nargis Kinnar Vs.
State of U.P. & others) and order dated 29.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-III Court No.15 Shahjahanpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 155 of
2024 (Farukh alias Nargis Vs. Kailash and others) u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station
Katra, District Shahjahanpur.
ii) Direct the court below to remand back the matter and direct the concerned police
station to register the case against respondent no.2 to 6 and investigate the matter."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner as well
as private respondents are transgenders and they reside in the same
locality and also collected money from the persons as a gift on the
occasion of child birth, marriages. However, the respondents are now
threatening him either to pay them Rs.50,000/- per month as 'badhai' or
face dire consequences. Aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents, the
petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the
ACJM, Saharanpur, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 155
of 2024 (Farukh alias Nargis Vs. Kailash and others). However, said case
was dismissed on 29.4.2024 against which the petitioner preferred
A227 No. 7381 of 2025
2
Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2024 (Farukh @ Nargis Kinnar Vs. State of
U.P. & others), which too was dismissed on 15.1.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both parties are
belonging to the same community and both of them are engaged in
collecting 'badhai'. Therefore, the act of the respondents in compelling the
petitioner to collect and give him an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month as
'badhai' amounts to an extortion. However, the contents of the application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were not properly considered by both
courts. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
5. Learned AGA submitted that a report was called from the police
concerned by the learned Magistrate wherein it has been stated that an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was lodged earlier on the same
allegations where both parties entered into a written compromise. It was
further mentioned that one of the parties is violating the terms of the
compromise entered into between the parties earlier. Learned AGA
further submitted that dispute between the parties pertains to the
distribution of 'badhai amount' between them and the said dispute does
not, prima facie, constitute any criminal offence and this was their
personal dispute.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of the trial
court as well as the revisional court.
7. A bare reading of the allegations, prima facie, reveal that dispute
between the parties is regarding the sharing of 'badhai amount' between
them, for which they are regularly prosecuting each other.
8. In the given circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity in
the findings recorded by both courts. Hence, both orders passed by the
trial court as well as the revisional court are upheld and this petition is
dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
May 5, 2026
SK
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…