TILAKRAM AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2579 of 2026

Tilakram And 2 Others
                                                   .....Revisionist(s)
                              Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                       .....Opposite
                                                             Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Vipin Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilesh            Kumar
                                Vishwakarma, G.A., Rakesh
                                Kumar Dubey

Court No. - 86
       HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. on the point of
admission.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against
the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Case No. 2235 of 2016
(State Vs. Tilakram and others) arising out of Case Crime No.
102 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police
Station Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that in this
case, the dispute is of purely civil nature regarding which there is
litigation between the parties pending before the revenue court.
There are two death certificates, one showing the date of death of
the deceased as 15.07.2003 and another 14.09.2001. The will-
deed in question is said to have been prepared on 03.04.2003.
Further submitted that when an application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No. 1518 of 2017 was filed by the revisionists before this
Court to quash the entire proceedings of the case due to abuse of
process of the court that was disposed of with direction to the
revisionists that they are to file an application for discharge
before the learned trial court but learned trial court has not
considered the material available on record and material collected
                                                    CRLR No. 2579 of 2026
                           2


during the course of the investigation but passed the order in
question while dismissing the application for discharge. It is also
submitted that the death certificate issued from the office of
Registrar birth and death is genuine and death certificate issued
from the Health Department is fabricated. The revenue authorities
have also accepted the death certificate issued by the birth and
death Registrar Office. In this way, no prima facie case is made
out against the revisionists but this fact was not taken into
consideration by the learned trial court while deciding the
application for discharge, therefore, request to set aside the order
passed by learned trial court and allow the revision while
discharging the revisionists.

Learned counsel for the revisionists relied his argument on the
judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mangla Prasad
Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 2012 0 Supreme(All)2331
that is related to the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and
Mukul Agrawal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 2020
0 AIR (SC) 1877, this case is also related to application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings of the
case.

Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A.
opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case,
the dispute is related to immovable property between the real
brothers that is based on fabrication of death certificate of the
deceased and preparation of will-deed. Death of the deceased
took place on 14.09.2001 and will-deed is said to have been
executed on 03.04.2003. Another death certificate shows the date
of death of deceased as 15.07.2003. At this stage, it cannot be
decided as to which death certificate is genuine. If it is assumed
that the deceased died on 14.09.2001 how can the will-deed be
executed by the deceased on 03.04.2003. This fact can only be
decided by the learned trial court after taking evidence on the part
of the parties. At the stage of framing of charge, only prima facie
case is to be seen. Even on grave suspicion charge can be framed
as per settled law.

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
                                                                                            CRLR No. 2579 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                        submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as
                                        learned A.G.A. perusal of record, the order passed by learned trial
                                        court dated 11.03.2026, it transpires that in the same case an
                                        application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1518 of 2017 was filed
                                        in which remedy for quashing the entire proceedings of the case
                                        against the revisionists was refused and direction was given to the
                                        revisionists to file an application for discharge. In pursuance to
                                        which present application for discharge was filed by the
                                        revisionists before the learned trial court which was decided on
                                        11.03.2026. It also transpires that there are two death certificates
                                        of the deceased, one showing the date of death of the deceased on
                                        14.09.2001 and other showing the date of death as 15.07.2003.
                                        The unregistered will deed is said to have been executed by the
                                        deceased on 03.04.2003. At this stage, learned court cannot
                                        decide the fact as to which date of death of the deceased was
                                        correct and which certificate was genuine but it requires evidence
                                        to be taken on the part of both the parties which is possible during
                                        trial. In this way, there appears no any illegality and impropriety
                                        in the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by learned trial court but
                                        this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the
                                        admission stage.

                                        Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.

                                        May 5, 2026
                                        Anurag Singh
                                                                          (Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad