Allahabad High Court
DURGESH KAUSHIKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SANJIV KUMAR
Holding
The revision is dismissed and the magistrate's order rejecting the Section 173(4) BNSS application is upheld.
Summary
Durgesh Kaushik filed a criminal revision under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging a Judicial Magistrate's order that rejected his Section 173(4) BNSS application on the ground that no offence was disclosed. The revisionist alleged that fraud had been committed in a pending Tehsildar proceeding, citing an affidavit stating that his signatures were obtained fraudulently. The State argued that only the court or its officer can initiate perjury proceedings under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 215 BNSS) and that the magistrate's order was proper. The High Court observed that the revisionist's application did not clearly disclose any fraud or perjury and that the magistrate was within his discretion to reject it. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the revision.
Issues considered
- Whether a revision under Sections 438/442 BNSS is maintainable when the underlying Section 173(4) BNSS application fails to disclose the alleged offence.
- Whether the Judicial Magistrate erred in rejecting the application on the ground of non-disclosure of offence.
- Whether allegations of fraud or perjury can be entertained without clear averments in the application.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 173(4), 215, 438, 442
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 195
Subjects
- criminal revision
- Section 173(4) BNSS
- fraud
- perjury
- procedural law
- BNSS
- magistrate order
- maintainability
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5721 of 2026
Durgesh Kaushik
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anoop Kumar Sharma, Vindeshwari
Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vindehswari Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist,
learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. This Criminal Revision under Section 438/442 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNSS') has been filed against impugned order dated
04.08.2026 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jewar, Gautam Budh
Nagar in Misc. Case No. 123 of 2026 (Durgesh Vs. Gajendra Sharma and
others). By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the
application of the revisionist, which was filed under Section 173(4) BNSS
on the ground that the same is not maintainable, as the applicant has not
disclosed, what offence has been committed.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order is
not sustainable in the eye of law and from the contents of the application,
prima facie, cognizable offence was made out. It is further submitted that
opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have committed fraud in a proceeding before
the Tehsildar concerned and in this regard one Jugendra had filed an
affidavit before the concerned court stating that his signatures were
obtained by fraud. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that
under Section 195 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 215 BNSS), it is the
court concerned or its officer, who can initiate proceedings with regard to
CRLR No. 5721 of 2026
2
any offence of perjury or fabricating false evidence, committed in a
proceedings of the case, as such, the impugned order does not suffer from
any material irregularity or infirmity.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist
admits that the matter relates to the proceedings, which is pending before
the Tehsildar concerned and the contention of the revisionist is that fraud
has been played upon the court, though the contents of the application do
not clearly disclose any such averment.
6. In view of the above, the concerned court is at liberty to take
appropriate action, in case, it finds that any fraud or perjury has been
committed in relation to the court proceedings by any of the parties.
Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
This Criminal Revision is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
September 23, 2026
Subham
Digitally signed by :-
SUBHAM KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…