PRAVEEN KUMAR MITTAL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40695 of 2025

Praveen Kumar Mittal And 3 Others
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Preet Pal Singh Rathore, Priya Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur,
                                Suman Srivastava

Court No. - 80
                    HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Mr.Preet Pal Singh Rathore and Mrs. Priya Saxena, learned
Counsel for the applicants, Shri Mahendra Pal Singh, learned Counsel for
opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A.
2. This application has been filed under Section 528 BNSS by the
applicants with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.01.2025, passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun in Complaint Case
No.902/2017(Gayatri Vs. Angan Lal and others) under Sections 120-B,
420, 467 and 468 I.P.C., Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun as well as
order dated 22.08.2025 passed by Additional District and Session
Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.3, Budaun in Criminal
Revision No.79 of 2025 including entire proceedings of the above
mentioned complaint case.
3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the present
dispute relates to the wife of late Omkar, namely Gayatri Devi, who was
son of late Bhagwan Das and grandson of late Khemai. Omkar married
with one Gayatri Devi daughter of Ramsahai. Unfortunately, she died
issue less on 15.06.1989, when her husband namely Omkar and her
father -in-law namely Bhagwan Das were alive. There was some
ancestral agricultural land in the name of Bhagwan Das. Unfortunately,
their son Omkar, husband of Gayatri Devi disappeared on 19.09.1991 and
did not return back till today.
4. One Rajeshwari Devi @ Jai Devi daughter of Amriti Lal, resident of
P.S. Bhamora, District bareilly was married with Darshan Singh, resident
                                                     NA528 No. 40695 of 2025
                               2

of village Daleeppur, District Bareily. Rajeshwari Devi posing herself to
be Gayatri Devi wife of Omkar. Darshan Lal has also died and the name
of Rajeshwari Devi was recorded in revenue record as his legal successor.
5. It is further submitted that some miscreants did collusion with the
Rajeshwari @ Jai Devi wife of Darshan Lal and posed her as Gayatri
Devi. Initially she posed herself as wife of late Omkar and approached to
the Tehsildar Budaun to mutate her name in the revenue record in place of
her husband Omkar without obtaining any order from judicial Court.
Consequently, PA-11 Ka dated 07.12.2011 was issued and the name
of Rajeshwari @ Jai Devi @ Gayatri Devi was entered in the revenue
record. It is further submitted that thereafter Rajeshwari @ Jai Devi @
Gayatri Devi executed the sale deed on 05.11.2012 in favour of Rajendra,
Radha Krishna Yadav, Balister Singh and opposite party no.2 was aware
about her status. For creating her identity as Gayatri Devi, she got issued
a general domicile certificate no.203132000307, dated 18.1.2013, from
the Sub Divisional Officer Aonla Bareilly in the name of Gayatri Devi
wife of Omkar.
6. Angan Lal and Pooran Lal submitted an application before the
Chairman/Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad Ujhani for issuance
of death certificate of late Gayatri Devi. After some scrutiny, death
certificate dated 15.01.2013 was issued. The co-accused Pooran Lal
lodged F.I.R., dated 20.02.2013, being Case Crime No.108/2013 under
Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. at Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun
against opposite party no.2 and her associates.
7. On the basis of sale deed dated 05.11.2012 the name of purchaser was
mutated in revenue record on 15.10.2013. Thereafter late Angan Lal and
Pooran Lal filed a Civil Suit no.27/2013 for cancellation of sale deed
datd 5.11.2012. Thereafter her brother-in-laws Angan Lal and Pooran Lal
filed an application before S.D.M. Aonla, District Bareilly for getting the
domicile certificate cancelled. After detailed inquiry, the said domicile
certificate was cancelled, being a forged document. Opposite Party no.2
did not challenge the said order before any authority.
8. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer after detailed
investigation in Case No.108/2013 under Sections 420, 467 and 468
I.P.C. at Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun came to the conclusion
that Gayatri and Rajeshwari @ Jai Devi are not same women but they are
                                                       NA528 No. 40695 of 2025
                               3

different and Gayatri Devi wife of Omkar had already died on
15.06.1989.
9. It is further submitted that for creating pressure and as a counter blast,
opposite party no.2 filed a Complaint Case no.209/2017 on 02.05.2017 in
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun. The opposite party no.2
got recorded her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. and C.J.M. Budaun also conducted an inquiry under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate relying upon the statement
of opposite party no.2 and her witness, summoned the accused, vide order
dated 26.11.2020. The summoning order was challenged by filing a
Criminal Revision No.26/2021, which was allowed by order dated
18.04.2022 and it was observed that Hori Lal, Angan Lal and Pooran Lal
have already being died and they have been summoned, the matter was
remanded for passing a fresh order.
10. It is further submitted on behalf of applicants that the learned
Magistrate again passed a summoning order dated 21.05.2022, the same
was also challenged by filing a Criminal Revision no.176/2022, which
was allowed by order dated 11.11.2022 and summoning order was set
aside. The learned Sessions Judge observed that accused Vinay Kumar
Saxena and Ashish Sharma are the public servant and they issued the said
death certificate while discharging of their official duties and they cannot
be prosecuted as per Section 197 Cr.P.C. Against the order dated
11.11.2022, the opposite party no.2 filed a Criminal Revision
no.5477/2022 before the High Court, which was dismissed vide order
dated 23.07.2024 and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 18.01.2025
again summoned the applicants under Section 120-B, 420, 467 and 468
I.P.C. Against the summoning order a Criminal Revision No.79/2025 was
filed, the same was dismissed by order dated 14.10.2025.
11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that there are
general allegations in the complaint and the statement given under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are also general in nature, no specific role
has been attributed against any of the applicants. The applicants are also
not beneficiary in any manner. No offence under Sections 120-B, 420,
467 and 468 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants and the summoning
order has been filed in a very casual manner. Without taking into
consideration the fact of the case and the summoning order as well as the
                                                       NA528 No. 40695 of 2025
                                4

order passed by learned Court is liable to be set aside.
12. Per contra, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for
Opposite Party no.2 that no illegality has been committed by learned
Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, after a long legal pattern filed
present summoning order dated 18.01.2025 the learned Magistrate has
taken in to consideration the facts as stated in the complaint and has also
taken in to consideration the statements of complainant given under
Section 200 and her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
13. The learned Magistrate has reached an opinion that prima facie case is
made out against the applicants. The applicants have challenged the
summoning order by filing a Criminal Revision. The same was also
dismissed by a detailed and reasoned order dated 22.08.2025. There is no
illegality in passing of the above mentioned impugned orders and the
application is liable to be dismissed.
14. As per the facts of the case, a complaint was filed by opposite party
no.2. Her statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and
witnesses were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and summoning order
was passed by order dated 26.11.2020. The said summoning order was
challenged by filing a Criminal Revision no.26/2021, wherein the learned
Sessions Judge along with the said revision by making an observation that
Hori Lal, Angan Lal and Pooran Lal has already died. The matter was
remanded back. Thereafter the learned Magistrate again passed the
summoning order dated 21.05.2022 against which surviving applicants
filed a Criminal Revision no.176/2022, which was allowed by learned
Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.11.2022. The summoning order was
set aside.
15. The learned Sessions Judge while deciding the said revision, by
making an observation that Vinay Kumar Saxena and Ashish Sharma are
the public servant. The alleged death certificate was issued while
discharging their official duties and prior sanction under Section 197
Cr.P.C. was required before filing of the complaint, and the matter was
referred for passing a fresh order.
16. Opposite Party no.2 challenged the said order dated 11.11.2022
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Bareilly by filing a
Criminal Revision no.5477/2022 before this Court. This Court vide order
dated 23.07.2024 dismissed the said revision.
                                                                                         NA528 No. 40695 of 2025
                                                                  5

                                    17. After that the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 18.01.2025
                                    and summoned the applicants to face trial under Section 120-B, 420, 467
                                    and 468 I.P.C. The applicant challenged the summoning order dated
                                    18.01.2025 by filing a said Criminal Revision no.79/2025 which was
                                    dismissed vide order dated 22.08.2025.
                                    18. The learned Magistrate while passing the summoning order dated
                                    18.01.2025 has taken into consideration the facts as stated in the
                                    complaint and also taken into consideration the statement of Opposite
                                    Party no.2 recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the other witnesses
                                    under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has given a detailed
                                    reasoning by which he reached a conclusion that there are sufficient
                                    material for summoning the applicants. The learned Magistrate has not
                                    committed any illegality in passing of the impugned order.
                                    19. The learned Sessions Judge while deciding the Criminal Revision
                                    no.79/2025 has also given a detailed reasoning in passing of the impugned
                                    order dated 22.08.2025. The learned Magistrate as well as learned
                                    Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in passing of the
                                    impugned order, hence the application is liable to be dismissed.
                                    20. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.




                                                                                         (Chawan Prakash,J.)
                                    February 25, 2026
                                    VS




Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR BARATAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad