BIHARI LALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7285 of 2025

Bihari Lal
                                                        .....Revisionist(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                             .....Opposite
                                                                   Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Lal Mani Singh, Raghuvir Sharan
                                Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sunil Kumar Singh

Court No. - 91
                  HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the
judgment and order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chitrakoot Dham in Misc. Case No. 488 of 2025,
whereby the application moved by the revisionist under Section
175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding to Section 156(3) CrPC) was rejected.
2. The case of the revisionist, in brief, is that he is the owner of Arazi
No. 2423 measuring 0.170 hectare, situated at Village Bhaisaundha,
Tehsil Karbi, District Chitrakoot. It is alleged that the said land has
been illegally occupied by opposite party no.2 at the instance of
opposite party no.3, who is the real brother of the revisionist.
3.The revisionist states that he was engaged in business at Kanpur
Nagar and upon visiting his village in June 2025, he discovered that
opposite party no.2 was in occupation of the land and had
constructed a shop thereon and was running business from the same.
Upon inquiry, opposite party no.2 informed him that he had
purchased the property from opposite party no.3. The revisionist
thereafter submitted complaints to various authorities including the
Chief Minister of the State, Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham,
Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot, and Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Karbi, seeking registration of an FIR.
4. A written complaint dated 14.08.2025 was submitted before the
Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot alleging that on 31.07.2025 at
about 2:30 p.m., opposite party nos. 2 and 3 assaulted and threatened
the revisionist stating that if he returned to the village he would be
killed and buried. It was further alleged that opposite party no.2
made caste-related remarks and threatened to implicate the
revisionist in false cases. One Lovely is stated to be an eyewitness
                                                     CRLR No. 7285 of 2025
                              2

and several villagers allegedly gathered and attempted mediation.
5. The revisionist claims that after the said incident he approached
Bharatkoop Police Station, but no action was taken. He again
approached the Superintendent of Police and other authorities on
11.09.2025, yet no FIR was registered. Consequently, an application
under Section 175(3) BNSS was filed before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate.
6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate called for a police report. As
per the police report, a residential structure of opposite party no.2 has
been existing on the disputed land for more than 30 years, and
opposite party no.2 claims purchase of the property from opposite
party no.3 about 36 years back for a consideration of Rs.7,500/-. The
report further notes absence of any recorded verbal altercation or
threats during June 2025. After considering the police report and
material placed on record, the learned Magistrate recorded a finding
that the dispute essentially pertains to land ownership and possession
and does not disclose sufficient criminality so as to warrant
registration of FIR, and accordingly rejected the application on
08.09.2025.
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist assailed the impugned order on
the ground that the Magistrate dismissed the application
mechanically despite allegations of assault, cheating and forgery,
emphasizing that revenue records do not reflect any transfer and no
registered sale deed exists. Learned counsel for the State and the
opposite parties supported the impugned order contending that the
dispute is civil in nature, possession is longstanding, and the criminal
proceedings are an afterthought after decades.
8. This Court has carefully considered rival submissions and perused
the record.
9. It is well settled that power under Section 156(3) CrPC / Section
175(3) BNSS is discretionary. The Magistrate is not bound to direct
registration of FIR merely because cognizable offences are alleged
and must apply judicial mind before exercising such power. The
Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6
SCC 287 has categorically held that invocation of Section 156(3)
cannot be mechanical or routine endorsement of the complaint but
must be exercised with judicial mind.
10. In the present case, the dominant controversy relates to title and
possession over Arazi No. 2423. Opposite party no.2 asserts
purchase and possession for more than three decades, while the
revisionist disputes the transfer on the basis of absence of mutation
and registered sale deed. These issues directly concern ownership
and legality of transfer of immovable property, which fall within the
                                                     CRLR No. 7285 of 2025
                             3

domain of competent civil or revenue courts.
11. The Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India
Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 has cautioned that a purely civil dispute
should not be permitted to be converted into a criminal case and that
criminal proceedings cannot be used as a shortcut for enforcing civil
rights. Further, in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8
SCC 751, it was held that disputes relating to title or possession of
immovable property do not constitute offences of cheating or forgery
unless fraudulent intention is shown from inception and specific
forged documents are identified.
12. In the present matter, no particular forged document has been
identified, nor is there material showing dishonest intention at the
inception of the alleged transaction. Allegations of cheating and
forgery are general in nature and lack particulars. Therefore, the
learned Magistrate rightly treated the land dispute as predominantly
civil.
13. Coming to the alleged incident dated 31.07.2025, it is evident
from the complaint itself that the incident arose when the revisionist
objected to possession over the disputed land. The alleged assault
and threats are thus intertwined with the property dispute. No
contemporaneous medical evidence, injury report, or independent
documentary corroboration has been placed on record. The police
report also does not confirm any prior record of threats or altercation.
14. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335, has held that criminal proceedings instituted
primarily to settle civil disputes or exert pressure fall within the
category of abuse of process. The alleged land transaction is stated to
be more than 35–36 years old, which militates against any theory of
fraudulent intention at inception.
15. The revisionist has placed reliance upon the recent judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kathyayini v. Sri Sidharth P.S.
Reddy & Ors. (2025 INSC 818). However, the said judgment is
clearly distinguishable on facts. In Kathyayini, the Supreme Court
found specific and contemporaneous material disclosing prima facie
criminality independent of the civil dispute, including clear
allegations of deception and fraudulent conduct, thereby warranting
police investigation. In the present case, on the contrary, the core
controversy pertains to ownership and possession of immovable
property extending back more than three decades. No specific forged
document has been identified, no material indicating dishonest
intention at the inception of the alleged transaction has been placed
on record, and the alleged incident dated 31.07.2025 is inseparably
intertwined with the property dispute and unsupported by
                                                                                        CRLR No. 7285 of 2025
                                                                 4

                                    contemporaneous medical or independent evidence. Thus, unlike
                                    Kathyayini, the present matter does not disclose independent or
                                    overwhelming elements of criminality so as to mandate registration
                                    of FIR under Section 175(3) BNSS. Accordingly, the reliance placed
                                    by the revisionist on the aforesaid judgment is misplaced.
                                    16. Although allegations of assault and intimidation are made, the
                                    Magistrate is not bound to order FIR in every such case. Where
                                    police investigation is not found necessary at the threshold, the
                                    Magistrate may decline Section 156(3), and the complainant remains
                                    free to pursue remedies under Chapter XV CrPC. In the facts of the
                                    present case, having regard to the overwhelmingly civil nature of the
                                    dispute and the incident being incidental thereto, this Court finds no
                                    legal necessity to direct conversion into a complaint case. The
                                    revisionist remains at liberty to avail appropriate remedies in
                                    accordance with law.
                                    17. The impugned order reflects due application of mind. The
                                    Magistrate called for a police report, considered the allegations
                                    including the incident of 31.07.2025, examined the nature of dispute,
                                    and recorded reasons for declining registration of FIR. In revision,
                                    interference is warranted only where there is perversity, illegality or
                                    jurisdictional error. No such infirmity is demonstrated.
                                    18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
                                    dispute is predominantly civil and revenue in character, the alleged
                                    incident dated 31.07.2025 is incidental thereto and unsupported by
                                    contemporaneous material, and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
                                    has exercised judicial discretion properly.
                                    19. Accordingly, the criminal revision lacks merit and is dismissed.




                                                                                      (Garima Prashad,J.)
                                    February 13, 2026
                                    Sachin Mishra




Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad