SONVEER SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 678 of 2026

Sonveer Singh
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                   :   Ajay Kumar Pathak
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. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is a
social worker who filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He
further submitted that the supporting affidavit was filed by Pankaj Kumar
Singh, son of Sonveer Singh (the complainant). The revisionist, Sonveer
Singh himself, did not file the supporting affidavit.

3. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the revisionist has no locus standi. There is
no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. The criminal revision is liable to be
rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the impugned
order dated 18.12.2025 is unjustifiable and a non-speaking order passed
without application of judicial mind; hence, it is liable to be set aside. He
also submitted that the estimate report signed by the Village Development
Officer (VDO), Sri Chandra Prakash, as per the Right to Information Act
(RTI) reply dated 31.05.2025, raises doubts, as at that time Sri Kuldeep
Singh was posted as VDO.

5. The revisionist, upon learning about the alleged embezzlement in the
construction of the Panchayat Bhawan, made a complaint to higher officials.
On his complaint, an explanation was sought by the Chief Development
Officer (CDO), Hathras. It is alleged that there was collusion with the VDO,
                                                            CRLR No. 678 of 2026
                                 2


who submitted an estimate report to the bank in which the cost was not
properly reflected and the required details were not filled, only to mislead
higher officials.

6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, directed submission of a
report to the CDO, Hathras, during the proceedings, wherein another
estimate report was submitted by the respondent before the CDO. The CDO
submitted the said estimate report before the court, in which every column
was filled.

7. At the time of final arguments on the application under Section 173(4)
B.N.S.S., three estimate reports were available before the court below;
however, this fact was ignored by the court below. The application under
Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was rejected on the ground that the signature of the
Village Pradhan was made by the complainant himself. It remains
unexplained how and under what circumstances a blank estimate report was
placed before the higher authorities without filling in the columns, which
creates serious doubt.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that, even if the
allegation regarding the signature of the Pradhan having been made by the
complainant is taken to be true (though not admitted), a handwriting expert's
report was warranted. However, no such report was obtained by the court
below. The application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. has been rejected
solely on the basis of the report submitted by the opposite parties, allegedly
to save themselves by misleading the court below.

9. It is further submitted that the matter of a forged signature requires proper
investigation by the police, and the persons responsible are liable to be
prosecuted. The alleged forgery is also reflected in the bill vouchers placed
before the court below, which were not filled with the amount and GST, yet
payments were made by the officials in collusion with the Pradhan.

10. The revisionist sought information under the R.T.I. Act regarding the
date from which construction of the Gram Panchayat Sachivalaya
commenced. In this regard, there are material contradictions: under the
R.T.I., the date was given as 25.07.2021, whereas in the explanation it was
stated as 15.05.2021. It is further stated that the V.D.O., Sasni, informed that
on 02.03.2021 a letter was signed for the supply of construction material,
whereas the signature on the said letter bears the date 23.02.2021. It appears
                                                             CRLR No. 678 of 2026
                                 3


that, in an attempt to shield themselves from allegations of embezzlement,
the officials made efforts to cover up the matter; however, this aspect was
not considered by the court below.

11. It is also submitted that the entire proceeding relating to the construction
of the Panchayat Bhawan was not conducted in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under law. The tender process was neither completed
as per norms nor properly invited or published on the notice board. The court
below remained silent on this point as well.

12. The estimate produced before the court below bears the signatures of
officials who were not posted at the relevant time, i.e., on 20.08.2020.
Hence, clear-cut forgery has been alleged. The revision deserves to be
allowed, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

13. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the law laid down by
the Uttarakhand High Court in Asgar v. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 04
UK CK 0080. In that case, the common judgment and order dated
26.03.2003 was rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/IVth
FTC, Haridwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2000. Criminal Revision No.
37 of 2003 was preferred by co-accused Asgar against the judgment and
order dated 28.03.2003 passed by the same court, whereby the judgment and
order of the trial court dated 07.12.2000 was affirmed. In that case, the
accused was convicted under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C., along with
Sections 4 and 10 of the U.P. Protection of Trees in Rural and Hill Areas
Act, 1976.

14. It is mentioned in paragraph 5 of the said judgment that the accused,
Rasheed Ahmad, was the Pradhan of his village during the relevant period of
the Gram Sabha, from 04.06.1987 to 09.06.1987. The allegations against
him were made by Saeed Ahmad, the Up-Pradhan/Deputy Headman of the
village, by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that
he, in active association with a wood contractor, Asgar (accused), had cut
several hundred important green trees standing on Khasra Nos. 112, 168, and
169, owned by the Gram Sabha. Whereas, in the present case, the
complainant/revisionist is an absolute stranger to the entire dispute and has
filed an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. Hence, he is not entitled
to claim the benefit of the judgment in Asgar (supra).

15. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied on the judgment of
                                                                 CRLR No. 678 of 2026
                                   4


the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of
Karnataka and Others, 2025 INSC 1282. In that case, the petition was filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereas in the present matter the proceedings
arise out of a criminal revision. The scope and limitations of Section 482
Cr.P.C. and those of a criminal revision are entirely different. Learned
counsel for the revisionist has relied upon paragraph no. 37 of the Sadiq
(supra) case, which is quoted hereinbelow:

     "37. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the position of law
     enunciated in Madhao v State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615,
     wherein it was held that:


         18. When a Magistrate receives a complaint he is not bound to
         take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the
         commission of an offence. The Magistrate has discretion in the
         matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the
         allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the
         forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under
         Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable
         time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a
         matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he
         will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking
         cognizance of the offence itself. As said earlier, in the case of a
         complaint regarding the commission of cognizable offence, the
         power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate
         before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a).
         However, if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the
         procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to revert
         back to the pre- cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3)."


16. An affidavit in support of the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S.
is mandatory. The application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. has been
rejected by the learned trial court. The present revision has been filed by the
revisionist; however, he has not filed the supporting affidavit himself. The
supporting affidavit has been filed by his son.

17. The complainant is an absolute stranger to the dispute and has filed the
application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. against the following persons: (1)
Hapendra Singh present Gram Pradhan (ii) Chandra Prakash, the then Gram
Panchayat Adhkari, Gram Panchayat Ajroi, (iii)the then A.D.O. Panchayat
Sasni, (iv)the then Block Development Officer, Tehsil Sasni, District
                                                                CRLR No. 678 of 2026
                                   5


Hathras. (v), the then Junior Engineer (Rural) Engineering Department and
(vi) present Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Smt. Niharika Singh (vii) and others
all conspirators. Section 2(h) and section 174 of B.N.S.S. are as follows:

     "Section 2(h) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in
     writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this
     Sanhita, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an
     offence, but does not include a police report.

     Explanation.—A report made by a police officer in a case which
     discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence
     shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such
     report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant."

     Section 173 (4)- Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an
     officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to
     in sub-section (1), may send the substance of such information, in writing
     and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied
     that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence,
     shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be
     made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by
     this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in
     charge of the police station in relation to that offence failing which such
     aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate."

18. As per the allegations made in the application under Section 173(4)
B.N.S.S. by the complainant/revisionist, it appears that there was some
misappropriation or embezzlement of funds and that neither a proper
estimate nor proper construction was carried out.

19. The complainant is absolutely a stranger to the matter. He has filed the
application against government officials in their official capacity. However,
he has failed to establish his locus standi, as he did not hold any official post
at the time of filing the application. A detailed report was submitted by the
Chief Development Officer, which has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to
the present criminal revision. The said report, dated 30.06.2025, concludes
that the allegations made by the revisionist do not have any substance.

20. The contention raised by learned counsel for the revisionist is that there
was no need to call for any report; rather, the F.I.R. ought to have been
registered and the matter investigated.

21. As per section 173(4) of B.N.S.S. without prejudice to the provisions
                                                                                                 CRLR No. 678 of 2026
                                                                      6


                                    contained in section 175, on the receipt of information relating to the
                                    commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three
                                    years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police
                                    station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of
                                    Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the
                                    offence,- (1) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether
                                    there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of
                                    fourteen days; or (ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima
                                    facie case. Section 175(4).- Any Magistrate empowered under section 210,
                                    may, upon receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of
                                    the discharge of his official duties, order investigation, subject to— (a)
                                    receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from
                                    the officer superior to him; and (b) after consideration of the assertions made
                                    by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged.

                                    22. Learned trial court had complied the due procedure as required under
                                    section 173(3) and section 174(4) of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Learned trial court
                                    did not find that a prima facie case is made out against the public servant and
                                    completed all the formalities required by the section 173 and 174 of the
                                    B.N.S.S. as mentioned hereinabove and passed the appropriate order in
                                    accordance with law.

                                    23. There is neither any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

                                    24. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed
                                    accordingly.

                                    February 17, 2026
                                    K.K. Maurya
                                                                                                 (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad