LAXMAN SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7513 of 2025

Laxman Sharma
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                     :   Ajay Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)                     :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.K. Gupta, Learned
A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that this Court
may be pleased to issue an order or direction setting aside the impugned
order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia, in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2024
(Lakshman Sharma versus State of U.P. and Others), and the order dated
18.12.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Ballia
(Annexure Nos. 5 and 3, respectively, to this petition). The petitioner has
also prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction
directing the learned Magistrate to direct the police of the concerned police
station to register a First Information Report against the opposite
parties/respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and to investigate the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 2 is the
real brother of the petitioner, who fabricated a forged mortgage deed on a
ten-rupee stamp paper after the death of their father, purporting it to have
been executed by the petitioner's father. On the basis of the said forged
mortgage deed, respondent No. 2 allegedly took illegal possession of the
share of agricultural land belonging to the petitioner. It was further
submitted that the signature on the forged mortgage deed is not that of the
petitioner's father, which is evident from the signatures available on the
ration card and in a civil suit filed by the petitioner's father. He further
submitted that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also connived with respondent No. 2
by affixing their signatures on the said forged deed as attesting witnesses. It
                                                           A227 No. 7513 of 2025
                                2


was submitted that the petitioner had filed an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., bearing Case No. 2488 of 2022 (Laxman Sharma vs. Ramji
Sharma and another), which was dismissed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate vide order dated 18.12.2023, observing that the dispute is purely
of a civil nature. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2023, the petitioner
preferred Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2024 (Laxman Sharma vs. State of
U.P. and Others), which too was dismissed, upholding the findings recorded
by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
both the courts have committed an irregularity in dismissing the application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as the allegations regarding forged signatures
on the mortgage deed are apparent from the documents, which were duly
referred to in the said application. Therefore, both the impugned orders are
liable to be set aside.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the
learned Trial Court.

5. The allegations mentioned in the application filed under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. prima facie appear to have arisen after disputes developed between
the petitioner and respondent No. 2, who are brothers, as is evident from the
order dated 18.12.2023. The learned Trial Court noted that a report was
called for from the concerned police station regarding the allegations,
wherein it was reported that late Dashrath Sharma, father of the petitioner
and respondent No. 2, had mortgaged his agricultural land to arrange money
for performing the last rites of his wife. It was further reported that
respondent No. 2 is presently unwilling to repay the mortgaged amount.
Considering the said police report, the application filed by the petitioner was
dismissed by the learned Trial Court. This Court does not find any perversity
in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court.

6. Apart from this, it is pertinent to note that an unregistered mortgage deed
has no legal sanctity. Even if such a mortgage deed had been executed, the
mortgaged property would devolve upon the legal heirs after the death of the
mortgagor. Hence, the allegations lack substance. The petitioner has no
surviving grievance after the death of his father, particularly when
respondent No. 2 had no legal right to redeem the property in the absence of
a registered mortgage.

7.   Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld, and the present
                                                                 A227 No. 7513 of 2025
                                                             3


                                    petition is dismissed.

                                    April 28, 2026
                                    Mukesh
                                                                 (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad