Allahabad High Court
VIRJANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that the alleged forgery and fraudulent claim for agricultural insurance attracted Section 420 IPC and therefore the cognizance order must be modified to include it, deleting Section 406 IPC.
Summary
The applicant, who was the informant in a fraud case involving forged lease deeds to claim agricultural insurance, sought to quash a fresh cognizance order dated 23.03.2026 that omitted Section 420 IPC. The order had been issued by the Civil Judge (SD) at Chhata, Mathura after a prior order was set aside following the Delhi Race Club judgment. The applicant argued that the alleged fraud clearly attracted Section 420 IPC and that the omission was contrary to the precedent that allows substitution of alternative sections. The respondents contended that the alleged conduct pertained only to a co‑sharer’s land and did not attract Section 420 IPC, though they admitted the other accused were involved. The Court examined the charge‑sheet and found that forged lease deeds were indeed prepared to induce insurance claims, making Section 420 IPC essential. Consequently, the Court modified the 23.03.2026 order, deleting Section 406 IPC and substituting Section 420 IPC, and incorporated Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The application was allowed, and the modified order now stands.
Issues considered
- Whether the fresh cognizance order dated 23.03.2026 erred in omitting Section 420 IPC in the charges.
- Whether Section 420 IPC can be substituted for Section 406 IPC in light of the Delhi Race Club precedent.
- Whether the alleged conduct of forging lease deeds for agricultural insurance claims falls within the ambit of Section 420 IPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- cognizance
- Section 420 IPC
- forgery
- agricultural insurance fraud
- modification of charge
- Section 528 BNSS
- High Court of Allahabad
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16221 of 2026
Virjan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pushpendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sarvjeet Kumar, Vikrant Pandey
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Pushpendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Sarvjeet Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 5 and learned
AGA for State.
2. The instant application has been preferred for seeking quashing of
impugned order dated 23.03.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (SD),
Chhata, Mathura, through which the opposite party nos.2 to 5 (accused
person) has been summoned in pursuance to sections 406, 467, 468, 471,
120B IPC in Case No.4170 of 2025 (State vs. Radhey Shyam and Others)
arising out of Case Crime No.212 of 2024 and direct the learned court
concerned to take fresh cognizance of offence against the above accused
persons in pursuance to sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, except
section 406 IPC.
3. It is the case of applicant, who is the informant in Case Crime No.212 of
2024, which has been registered as Case No.4170 of 2025 (State vs. Radhey
Shyam), wherein after conducting detail investigation by concerned
Investigating Officer charge-sheet has been submitted against the opposite
party nos.2 to 5 on dated 20.03.2025, upon which learned court concerned
vide order dated 12.05.2025 took cognizance of offence in pursuance to
sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and summoned the accused
persons. Thereafter, the order dated 12.05.2025 was challenged before this
Court in Application u/s 528 BNSS No.20704 of 2025, which was set-aside
vide order dated 04.07.2025 in the light of judgement rendered by Apex
Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others vs. State of Uttar
NA528 No. 16221 of 2026
2
Pradesh and another reported in 2024 10 SCC 690. Thereafter, learned
court of Civil Judge (SD), Chhata, Mathura in compliance of order dated
04.07.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed a fresh
cognizance order on dated 23.03.2026 and summoned the opposite party
nos.2 to 5/accused persons in pursuance to sections 406, 467, 468, 471,
120B IPC, omitting section 420 IPC at the time of taking fresh cognizance,
which impugned the instant application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that section 420 IPC has been
clearly made out against the accused persons, which has been observed at
the time of taking cognizance that certain forged papers for inducing
property putting the same for seeking claim of agricultural insurance in
shape of manufacturing certain lease deed. Learned counsel for applicant
also submitted that in case the trial cannot be proceeded in pursuance to
section 406 & 420 IPC simultaneously as per the dictum pronounced by
Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (supra), the alternative sections are
available in pursuance to section 420 IPC, which is essential one to be tried
by learned trial court. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for
applicant sought the attention of Court over the cognizance of offence order
dated 23.03.2026 itself, wherein it is specifically mentioned that "वादी के
स्वािमत्व वाली भूिम का फजर् प्टा तैयार िकया गया है".
5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 5 vehemently
opposed the prayer sought through instant application and rebutted the stand
taken up by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that one of the
accused, i.e., Radhey Shyam is the co-sharer of the same plot, which pertains
to applicant and as such by way of putting record of rights for seeking claim
of agricultural insurance is not covered in pursuance to attraction of section
420 IPC, but at the same time it is fairly admitted that other co-accused are
not the co-sharer of the same portion of land, which pertains to accused
Radhey Shyam as well as applicant. Learned AGA also adopted the
contentions as made by learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 5.
6. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the
parties, one thing is crystal clear that attraction of section 420 IPC is
specifically mentioned while taking cognizance of offence after perusal of
the entire documents along with charge-sheet submitted by concerned
Investigating Officer that certain documents have been prepared in shape of
lease deed which has been alleged to be forged and fictitious for seeking
NA528 No. 16221 of 2026
3
claim of agricultural insurance and as such attraction of section 420 IPC was
essential at the time of taking cognizance of offence; so far as regarding
section 406 IPC, the same can be substituted by alternative section, which
clarifies the offence and punishment in respect of offence carried out by
opposite party nos.2, 3, 4 and 5.
7. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, order
dated 23.03.2026 is hereby modified to the extent that section 406 IPC is
deleted and substituted with section 420 IPC and as such order dated
23.03.2026 through which cognizance of offence taken up by learned court
of Civil Judge (SD), Chhata, Mathura in Case No.4170 of 2025 shall be
treated and incorporated over the order-sheet in pursuance to sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 120B IPC.
8. The instant application stands allowed accordingly.
May 6, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…