RAMPAL SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 22 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1330 of 2026

Rampal Sharma
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 22 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                  :   Ashish Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)               :   G.A.

Court No. - 87
                     HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned
order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 10, Meerut, in Misc. Case No. 6757 of 2025 (Rampal
Sharma vs. Satish Chandra Kansal and others), under Section 173(4)
B.N.S.S., Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut, whereby the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application filed by the
revisionist under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S.

3. Revisionist/complainant Rampal Sharma has filed an application under
Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S. against Satish Chandra Kansal, Dr. Madan
Mohan Agrawal, Indra Kumar Sekhari, Smt. Kamla Devi, Smt. Prabha
Kansal, Dr. Jagat Prakash Goyal, Smt. Kanti Devi, Sri Govind Ram, Sri
Jauhari Mal Bansal, Sri Sunil Kumar, Sri Ajay Kumar, Kumari Chitra, Sri
Prakash Mittal, Sri Atul Kumar, Sri Vinay Kumar Kansal, Satish Chandra
(M.S. Chemical), Pooja Rastogi (M.S. Chemical), Atul Kumar Rastogi, Raj
Kishor Rastogi, Ashok Kumar Gupta, Rajeev Bansal, Santosh Kumar
Rastogi.

4. It is alleged that revisionist/Rampal Sharma, a senior citizen and resident
of Rizhani, District Meerut, purchased land bearing Khasra Nos. 180/2 and
183, admeasuring 3,404 square yards, situated at Village Mohkampur,
Meerut, through a registered sale deed dated 01.09.1982 from Smt. Devi and
Smt. Shanti Devi. Originally, Kundan Lal had executed a registered Will in
1948 in favour of his wife, Sharbati Devi, who thereafter executed a
registered Will in 1954 in favour of her daughters and grandson. After her
death in 1973, their names were duly recorded in the revenue records. The
revisionist purchased the land from the lawful co-sharers and has been in
possession since then.

5. It is also alleged that certain persons, in conspiracy, fabricated a forged
                                                                   CRLR No. 1330 of 2026
                                     2

Will in 1973 and obtained its probate ex parte in 1980 without knowledge of
the rightful parties. On the basis of the said forged Will, further sale deeds
and transactions were executed in favour of different persons and firms. The
revisionist/complainant asserts that Sharbati Devi used to affix her thumb
impression, whereas the alleged forged Will bears signatures, indicating
fabrication.

6. It is further alleged that forged powers of attorney, agreements, and sale
deeds were subsequently created to usurp the property, even by producing
impersonators of deceased persons. Despite several complaints made to the
police authorities, including a written complaint dated 18.01.2025, no FIR
has been registered.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that although a Will is alleged
to have been executed and its probate obtained, the same are wholly illegal
and not in accordance with law. It is contended that the said Will is forged
and fabricated, and the probate was obtained ex parte by concealing material
facts from the competent court.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the revisionist/complainant, Rampal
Sharma, a senior citizen and resident of District Meerut, had purchased land
bearing Khasra Nos. 180/2 and 183, admeasuring 3,404 square yards,
situated at Village Mohkampur, Meerut, through a registered sale deed dated
01.09.1982 from the recorded tenure holders, and has been in lawful
possession since then. It is further submitted that pursuant to a criminal
conspiracy, a forged Will allegedly executed in the year 1973 was set up and
its probate was obtained in the year 1980 without notice to the rightful
parties. On the basis of the said forged Will, several subsequent sale deeds,
powers of attorney, and agreements were executed in favour of various
persons and firms with the sole intention to usurp the land of the revisionist.

9. Learned counsel has argued that Sharbati Devi used to affix her thumb
impression in all documents during her lifetime; however, the alleged Will
bears signatures, which clearly indicates fabrication. It is next submitted that
impersonators of deceased persons were produced and forged documents
were created to give colour of legitimacy to the fraudulent transactions.

10. It is lastly submitted that despite repeated complaints to the police
authorities, including a written complaint dated 18.01.2025, no FIR has been
registered. Hence, the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was filed
against the accused persons, but the same has not been properly considered,
necessitating interference by this Court.

11. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and contended that the impugned order
does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Hence, the criminal revision is liable
to be dismissed.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the matter
is purely civil in nature. The entire dispute, if any, arises out of the Will executed by
Genda Lal in favor of his wife, Sharbati Devi, in the year 1948. Thereafter, Sharbati
Devi executed a registered Will in the year 1954 in favor of Smt. Devi, Smt. Shanti
                                                                                                    CRLR No. 1330 of 2026
                                                                        3

                                    Devi, and Smt. Susheela Devi. After the death of Sharbati in the year 1973, their
                                    names were recorded accordingly.

                                    13. The revisionist claims to have purchased the land in question, measuring 3,404
                                    square yards, from the shares of Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Devi. It is further evident
                                    that the probate, if granted ex parte, could have been challenged before the competent
                                    civil court in accordance with the law. The dispute essentially relates to the title and
                                    validity of testamentary documents, which are matters of civil adjudication.

                                    14. The learned trial court has specifically observed that several civil and criminal
                                    proceedings are pending between the parties and, therefore, rejected the application
                                    under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S.

                                    15. In view of the aforesaid facts and the nature of the allegations made in the
                                    complaint, which are purely civil in nature, this Court does not find any illegality or
                                    irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and
                                    is hereby dismissed.




                                    February 23, 2026
                                    M. Tarik
                                                                                                      (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad