JAGDEESH PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

                                    Reserved on 22.01.2026
                                    Delivered on 18.03.2026

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34534 of 2017

Jagdeesh Prasad                               …..Applicant(s)

                           Versus

State of U.P. and                                …..Opposite
Another                                              Party(s)


Counsel for Applicant(s)    : A.C.    Srivastava,  Ravitendra
                              Pratap Singh Chandel
Counsel for Opposite        : G.A.
Party(s)


with
           APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40887 of 2014

Raj Kumar Nagar                               …..Applicant (s)

                           Versus

State of U.P. and                                …..Opposite
Another                                              Party(s)


Counsel for Applicant(s)    : Anand Srivastava, Ravitendra
                              Pratap Singh Chandel, Sushil
                              Shukla
Counsel for Opposite        : Adarsh Bhushan, Got. Advocate,
Party(s)                      Neerja Singh, Sharve Singh
Court No. - 83

        HON’BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1.      Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Ms. Sarita Singh, learned counsel for the applicants as well as
learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A. for
the State.

2.      Both the applications, related to the same judgment & order are
being heard together and decided by this common order.

3.      The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 34534 of 2017
has been preferred with a prayer for quashing the impugned order
dated     30.08.2014    passed    by   learned   Additional    Session
Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) in Criminal Revision No. 116 of
2013 arising out of Criminal Case No. 273 of 2013 under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kasna, District Gautam
Budh Nagar (Smt Kusum Vs. Jagdish and others) against the
applicant and further prays to stay the further proceedings in the
aforesaid case during the pendency of present application.

4.      The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40887 of 2014
has been preferred with a prayer for quashing the impugned order
dated     30.08.2014    passed    by   learned   Additional    Session
Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) in Criminal Revision No. 116 of
2013 arising out of criminal Case No. 273 of 2013 under section 420,
467, 468, 471 IPC PS Kasna District Gautam Buddh Nagar (Smt
Kusum v. Jagdish & others) against the applicant and further prays to
stay the further proceedings in the aforesaid case during the
pendency of present application.



                                                                  2 of 9
5.    Facts in brief are that the informant/opposite party no. 2 moved
an application to S.S.P. to direct the Incharge Kotwali kasna to
register a case against the applicants on which at the direction of
S.S.P. dated 07.09.2011, Case Crime No. 601 of 2011 under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. was registered against accused Jagdeesh
Prasad, Baljeet Singh Nagar, Raj Kumar Nagar and other persons.
The informant mentioned in the F.I.R. that she became member in
Vidhi Vihar Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited, Noida in the year 2000.
On demand by the secretary of the society, the cost for a plot
measuring 400 square meter was realized. In the year 2007, a plot
measuring 170 square meter was allotted to her on the place of 400
square meter. The accused persons prepared forged documents,
receipts and her affidavit and got the allotment cancelled. They
committed several other irregularities and grabbed money of the
society and also committed illegality in allotment of plots. The case
was investigated by the I.O. and no case was found to be established
against the applicants that was the reason final report was filed. On
which notice was issued by the learned Magistrate and protest was
filed by the informant and after hearing the informant the learned
court of Magistrate accepted the final report and rejected the protest
application by passing the order dated 13.06.2013 against which
criminal revision was filed which was allowed by order dated
30.08.2014 that is in question in the present applications.

6.    It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in this
case during the course of investigation no any material was found to
establish prima facie case against the applicants. The informant
herself submitted an application for membership of the society
representing herself to be an Advocate though she was not, that was
the reason membership was granted and when this fact came into the

                                                                   3 of 9
knowledge of the society her membership was terminated after
giving her proper opportunity of hearing through notice by registered
post. Being aggrieved with the termination of her membership from
the society she lodged the first information report against the
applicants with false statements stating that the affidavit said to be
given by the informant for membership of the society was prepared
by the applicants by committing forgery and the postal receipts were
fabricated by them for the purpose of terminating her membership.
During the course of investigation the I.O. investigated all these
issues. He made approach to the notary who clearly stated that the
affidavit was sworn by the informant herself and he verified the
contents mentioned in it. He also verified about the postal receipts
issued from the post office though the record was already weeded
that was the reason this fact could not be verified properly but it was
found that when the computer in the post office was in disorder the
postal receipts were issued manually. Nowhere, it was found by the
I.O. that the postal receipts were fabricated by the applicants. No any
employee of post office disclosed any such fact before the I.O. The
informant herself concealed the fact of not being an Advocate at the
time of applying for membership of the society. In this way, the
informant herself was at fault. When after investigation final report
was filed by the I.O. further investigation was also directed to be
made by the Circle Officer and then by S.S.P. but no offence was
found to be committed by the applicants, as a result again final report
was filed by the Investigating Officers. The learned Magistrate
issued notice to the informant who filed protest application narrating
contents as mentioned by her in the F.I.R. regarding preparation of
affidavit by applicants and also fabrication of postal receipts. The
learned Magistrate perused the material collected during the course


                                                                  4 of 9
of investigation and also considered the contents of protest
application and passed the order in detail while rejecting the protest
application and accepted the F.R. There was no any illegality or
impropriety in the order. He further submits that the informant filed a
criminal revision against the order passed by the learned Magistrate
in which the learned revisional court has set aside the order holding
that there was sufficient material on record about fabrication of
postal receipts and preparation of affidavit but it was not based on
the material on record as collected during the course of investigation
by the I.O. In this way, the learned Revisional Court has committed
apparent error while passing the order in question and is liable to be
set aside.


7.    Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned
A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the
learned Revisional Court has passed the order in question after
perusing the record and getting the order passed by the learned
Magistrate illegal. The learned Magistrate did not take note of the
contents on protest application filed by the opposite party no. 2/the
informant about forged affidavit prepared by the applicants and also
fabrication of postal receipts. In this way, the learned Revisional
Court has committed no error in passing the order dated 30.08.2014
and setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate on
13.06.2013 by which it has set aside the order passed by the learned
Magistrate.


8.    On receiving final report, the learned court of A.C.J.M. Ist,
Gautam Buddha Nagar issued notice to the informant on which she
filed protest application stating that the I.O. has filed final report


                                                                  5 of 9
without making proper investigation on specific points. The learned
court concerned passed the order on 13.06.2013 in detail going
through the material on record and also the contents of protest
application filed by the informant. It was found that final report no.
86/12 was filed by I.O. on 16.03.2012 on which Circle Officer
directed him to make further investigation. In pursuance to the order
passed by the Circle Officer further investigation also culminated
into final report. S.S.P. also directed to make investigation on merit
and the Investigating officer filed final report on 30.03.2012 and no
offence was found to be established against the applicants. It was
also found that for membership of the society the candidate was
required to be an Advocate but at that time the informant did not
have degree of law and was not an Advocate that was the reason her
membership was terminated as she had filed false affidavit and
declaration stating herself to be an Advocate. No any material was
found during the course of investigation about the preparation of
affidavit of informant to be fabricated by the applicants since
affidavit was sworn before the notary advocate who affirmed the fact
of signature of the informant and also established the fact that she
herself prepared the notary affidavit and after swearing it before the
notary Naveen Chandra Sharma, Advocate, she filed it before the
society for membership. Before termination of her membership she
was given notice. The postal receipts were said to be fabricated by
the informant but when this fact was verified from the post office by
I.O. it was found that these receipts were given to the applicants by
Munshi Babu Ram and he told that postal clerk Shyam Pandey
issued those receipts to him manually since computer was not in
order. The Investigating Officer further tried to verify this fact but it
was found that record in relation to issuance of receipts was weeded


                                                                    6 of 9
within 18 months whereas 3 years had elapsed from the date of
issuance of those postal receipts but it was not reported by the postal
department that those receipts were fabricated or not issued from the
post office. In this way, the receipts said to be fabricated by the
applicants could not be established. Considering all these facts the
learned Magistrate has passed the order in question and accepted the
final report while rejecting the protest application filed by the
informant.


9.    Against this order criminal revision was filed by the informant
by which order dated 13.06.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate
was set aside against which these applications have been preferred
before this Court. The learned Revisional Court has recorded the
finding that there is sufficient evidence present in the case diary
regarding fabrication of postal receipts on the basis of which
membership of informant was terminated by the applicants but this
fact was not taken into consideration by the learned court and order
was passed on final report while rejecting the protest application
filed by the opposite party no. 2/the informant. In this regard, it is to
note that the Investigating Officer verified this fact by making
approach to the post office concerned but it was found that the postal
receipts were issued prior to 3 years whereas the record was weeded
within 18 months, as a result original record was not available in the
post office and it was also found that manual receipts were issued by
the post office when computer was in disorder. Nowhere, it was
disclosed by the employees of the post office that those postal
receipts were fabricated or forged. He also found that at the time of
submission of application and swearing of affidavit regarding the
informant being an Advocate she was not registered in the Bar


                                                                    7 of 9
counsel and she was not an Advocate but student. Likewise the
Investigating Officer made query with the notary Naveen Chandra
Sharma Advocate who verified the contents of the affidavit sworn by
the informant and stated clearly that the affidavit was sworn by the
informant herself and he testified the contents of the affidavit. In this
way, it becomes evident that the learned Magistrate has passed the
order in question in detail after going through the material collected
during the course of investigation and the contents as made by the
informant in her protest application but the learned Revisional Court
has passed the order dated 30.08.2014 only on the basis of statement
as made by the informant in her protest application and not based on
the material collected during the course of investigation by the
Investigating Officer.


10.   In considered opinion of this Court, the conclusion as drawn by
the learned Magistrate while passing the order dated 13.06.2013
cannot be said to be erroneous or against the material available on
record as collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation but
the learned Revisional Court has committed error in passing the
order in question, as a result these applications succeed and the order
dated 30.08.2014 passed by the learned Revisional Court in Criminal
Revision No. 116 of 2023 being illegal and inappropriate is liable to
be set aside.


11.   Accordingly, these Applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Nos. 34534 of 2017 and 40887 of 2014 are herby allowed and the
order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge
(S.C./S.T. Act) dated 30.08.2014 in Criminal Revision No. 116 of
2013 (Smt Kusum Vs. Jagdish and others) arising out of Criminal


                                                                    8 of 9
                                    Case No. 273 of 2013 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.,
                                    Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar is hereby set
                                    aside and the order passed by learned Magistrate dated 13.06.2013 is
                                    affirmed.



                                                                 (Hon. Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.)

                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Suraj Srivastav




                                                                                                   9 of 9



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