Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

no.1 to 3 namely Smt. Suman, Ram Kishore and Narsingh Pal Yadav, respectively of APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 9972 of 2025 and the applicants no.1 and 2 namely Ramanand Sagar and Chandra Mohan, respectively of APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8857 of 2025 have prayed 2 A482 No. 9972 of 2025 for quashing of the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur (in short "revisional Court") in Criminal Revision No. 126 of 2024 (Hawaldar Tewari Vs. Raj Kishore and Others) whereby the revision has been allowed and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur (in short "trial Court") has been directed to pass order afresh in Complaint Case No.276 of 2024 in view of observations made in impugned judgment.

3. The applicant no.1 and 3 in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 9972 of 2025 are purchasers of the land, who bought the land from alleged heirs of Parmeshwar Dutt. The applicants in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8857 of 2025 were revenue officials at relevant point of time against whom allegations of forwarding illegal and incorrect report for recording the name of alleged heir under PA-11 have been levelled.

4. In APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8857 of 2025, notice was issued to opposite party nos. 2 to 9. The power has been filed by Shri Mohit Ashok, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2, who is complainant. The opposite party nos. 3 to 9 are formal parties. The counsel for complainant/opposite party no.2 has made submissions who is aggrieved party.

5. Heard Shri Mohd. Waris Farooqui, learned counsel for the applicants in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 9972 of 2025, Shri Lalit Kishore Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8857 of 2025, learned A.G.A-I for the State and Shri Mohit Ashok, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2/Complainant in both the applications.

6. For the sake of brevity, facts as mentioned in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 9972 of 2025 are being considered, which are as under:- The Opposite Party No.2/Complainant moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(3) BNSS, 2023) with the allegation that the applicant no.2 succeeded in recording the names of Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Parmeshwar Dutt; Gyan Prasad and Deepak, alias Pappal who are sons of Shri Parmeshwar Dutt through P.A-11, and, thereafter the applicant nos.1 and 3, 3 A482 No. 9972 of 2025 purchased the land of Gata No.1020-Min/Area 0.004, situated at Hamlet - Sonapur, Pargana - Sadullahnagar, Tehsil - Utraula, District - Balrampur, through registered sale deed dated

20.05.2014, from the legal heirs of Parmeshwar Dutt Tewari. It is a case of the applicants that the applicant no.2 has been implicated in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by Opposite Party No.2 only on account of being the husband of applicant no.1 whereas she has no concern, whatsoever, with the revenue records, nor has committed any manipulation or interpolation, whatsoever, in the revenue record, as alleged in the complaint. Lekhpal of Area, who was duty-bound to make entry in the revenue records at the relevant point of time, Ramanand Sagar S/o Satya Ram and Chandra Mohan S/o Paras Nath, who have made a detailed query, thereafter, ordered to mutate the names of Smt.Vimla Devi, Gyan Prasad and Deepak alias Pappal, respectively.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that that the Opposite Party No.2 moved an application under Section 34 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before the Tehsildar, Utraula, District Bairampur, on

04.08.2024, whereas the Revenue Inspector recorded names of the legal heirs and successors of Rameshwar Dutt, vide order dated 18.02.2014.

8. It is further submitted that the aforesaid order of the Revenue Inspector dated 18.02.2014 was challenged by the Opposite Party No.2 by filing an application under Section 34 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before Naib Tehsildar, Rehra Bazar, District Balrampur, which was transferred to the Court of the Tehsildar, Utraula, District Balrampur.

9. It is further submitted that the Tehsildar proceeded and decided the matter on 20.05.2025 by which the publication dated 10.04.2025 has been cancelled, whereupon the order passed by Revenue Inspector on

18.02.2014 has been maintained.

10. It is further submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature, more so, the allegation levelled by the Opposite Party No.2 with regard to disappearance of his brother Parmeshwar Dutt and in the light the order 4 A482 No. 9972 of 2025 dated 20.05.2025, passed by Tehsildar, Utraula, District Balrampur, no criminal offence is made-out against the applicants. Even if the story of prosecution is taken on its face value, no such offense is made out against the applicants.

11. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 has also filed three suits for cancellation of the sale Deed of applicants nos.1 and 3, vide Regular Suits Nos. 487 of 2016, 488 of 2016 and 475 of 2016, which are pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balrampur.

12. It is submitted that the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate dated

09.09.2024 is justified because the Court has recorded the finding that matter involves the dispute of civil nature, therefore, institution of criminal proceeding is bad in the eyes of law.

13. It is submitted that order passed by the revisional Court is liable to be set-aside on the ground that property has been mutated in the name of legal of Parmeshwar Dutt and the order has been passed, thereafter, the sale deed has been executed, therefore, there is no reason to institute the criminal proceedings against the applicants.

14. It is submitted that relevant documents issued by Government of Punjab has not been considered by the revisional Court.

15. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on paragraph 120 of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and judgment passed in R. Nagender Yadav Vs. State of Telangana and Anr., reported in 2022 INSC 1285 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1725.

16. On the other hand, Shri Mohit Ashok, learned counsel for Opposite the revisional Court after Party No.2/Complainant submits appreciating the correct factual aspect had allowed the revision and passed order for reconsideration and it is a case of remand wherein there is no illegality.

17. He further submits that the trial Court erred in law and fact both for the reason that after going through the application under Section 156(3) 5 A482 No. 9972 of 2025 CrPC, it is clear case of forgery and fraud but the same has not been considered, therefore, the revisional Court rightly remanded the case for afresh consideration.

18. He further submits that Parmeshwar Dutt, the brother of opposite party no.2, left house and he had gone to Punjab and remained unmarried. The applicant no.2/Raj Kishore became instrumental in commission of fraud and forgery in connivance with area lekhpal along with Smt. Vimla Devi, Gyan Prasad and Deepak alias Pappal who became fake legal heir of Parmeshwar Dutt. The matter is very serious which requires investigation by either criminal Court or by the police. The accused wanted to grab the property of Parmeshwar Dutt, who was unmarried, that is why name of Parmeshwar Dutt was expunged and names of Smt. Vimla Devi, Gyan Prasad and Deepak alias Pappal have been recorded through proceeding of PA-11. Sale of land of Parmeshwar Dutt was executed by way of sale deed by the fake legal heirs of Parmeshwar Dutt in favour of Smt. Suman and Narisingh Pal Yadav (applicant nos.1 and 3 respectively in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 9972 of 2025). The applicants of APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8857 of 2025 were the revenue officials who forwarded the report to the extent that Smt. Vimla Devi, Gyan Prasad and Deepak alias Pappal were legal heirs, therefore, the land in question should be mutated in their favour.

19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

20. After going through the record and the pleadings, I find that there is allegation of intention of the applicants of usurping the property of an unmarried and missing person for which forged heirs were created and the personal namely Parmeshwar Dutt was shown to be dead. Thereafter, the sale deeds were executed through his fictitious heirs which clearly constitute a criminal offense. Similarly, in the application submitted before the trial Court under Section 156(3) CrPC, it has been stated that the complainant's brother i.e. Parmeshwar Dutt resided in Punjab where Raj Kishore had talks with Parmeshwar Dutt regarding the sale of the property. This fact was also conveyed by Parmeshwar Dutt complainant/opposite party no.2. Parmeshwar Dutt, subsequently, went 6 A482 No. 9972 of 2025 on pilgrimage and taking advantage of his disappearance Raj Kishore went to Ludhiana and under a conspiracy got declared Smt. Vimla Devi, Gyan Prasad and Deepak, alias Pappal as his legal heirs though he was unmarried. These are serious allegations levelled in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. The allegations of inheritance of property of opposite party no.2 manipulated by Raj Kishore in collusion with revenue officials and the name of alleged heirs recorded through PA-11 have been levelled. The revisional Court has taken correct view by appreciating the fact that order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the trial Court did not consider the fact the person whose property alleged to have been misappropriated by the applicants herein had neither been shown to be dead nor it has been brought on record that he was alive.

21. The allegation in application under Section 156(3) CrPC is further very relevant to note that the name of fake illegal heirs were recorded through PA-11 in connivance with Raj Kishore and revenue officials for which certainly investigation is required. The investigation is required with regard to disappearance of brother of opposite party no.2. Unless it is inquired that he is dead or alive, whether he got married or not, or whether Smt. Vimla Devi, Gyan Prasad and Deepak, alias Pappal were legal heirs of Parmeshwar Dutt, it can not be said that launching of criminal proceedings is bad. The view taken by the revisional Court appears to be correct.

22. The application(s) are devoid of merits and are, accordingly, rejected. December 18, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.)

no.1 to 3 namely Smt. Suman, Ram Kishore and Narsingh Pal Yadav, respectively of APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 9972 of 2025 and the applicants no.1 and 2 namely Ramanand Sagar and Chandra Mohan, respectively of APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8857 of 2025 have prayed 2 A482 No. 9972 of 2025 for quashing of the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur (in short "revisional Court") in Criminal Revision No. 126 of 2024 (Hawaldar Tewari Vs. Raj Kishore and Others) whereby the revision has been allowed and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur (in short "trial Court") has been directed to pass order afresh in Complaint Case No.276 of 2024 in view of observations made in impugned judgment.

3. The applicant no.1 and 3 in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 9972 of 2025 are purchasers of the land, who bought the land from alleged heirs of Parmeshwar Dutt. The applicants in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8857 of 2025 were revenue officials at relevant point of time against whom allegations of forwarding illegal and incorrect report for recording the name of alleged heir under PA-11 have been levelled.

4. In APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8857 of 2025, notice was issued to opposite party nos. 2 to 9. The power has been filed by Shri Mohit Ashok, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2, who is complainant. The opposite party nos. 3 to 9 are formal parties. The counsel for complainant/opposite party no.2 has made submissions who is aggrieved party.

5. Heard Shri Mohd. Waris Farooqui, learned counsel for the applicants in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 9972 of 2025, Shri Lalit Kishore Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8857 of 2025, learned A.G.A-I for the State and Shri Mohit Ashok, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2/Complainant in both the applications.

6. For the sake of brevity, facts as mentioned in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 9972 of 2025 are being considered, which are as under:- The Opposite Party No.2/Complainant moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(3) BNSS, 2023) with the allegation that the applicant no.2 succeeded in recording the names of Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Parmeshwar Dutt; Gyan Prasad and Deepak, alias Pappal who are sons of Shri Parmeshwar Dutt through P.A-11, and, thereafter the applicant nos.1 and 3, 3 A482 No. 9972 of 2025 purchased the land of Gata No.1020-Min/Area 0.004, situated at Hamlet - Sonapur, Pargana - Sadullahnagar, Tehsil - Utraula, District - Balrampur, through registered sale deed dated

20.05.2014, from the legal heirs of Parmeshwar Dutt Tewari. It is a case of the applicants that the applicant no.2 has been implicated in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by Opposite Party No.2 only on account of being the husband of applicant no.1 whereas she has no concern, whatsoever, with the revenue records, nor has committed any manipulation or interpolation, whatsoever, in the revenue record, as alleged in the complaint. Lekhpal of Area, who was duty-bound to make entry in the revenue records at the relevant point of time, Ramanand Sagar S/o Satya Ram and Chandra Mohan S/o Paras Nath, who have made a detailed query, thereafter, ordered to mutate the names of Smt.Vimla Devi, Gyan Prasad and Deepak alias Pappal, respectively.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that that the Opposite Party No.2 moved an application under Section 34 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before the Tehsildar, Utraula, District Bairampur, on

04.08.2024, whereas the Revenue Inspector recorded names of the legal heirs and successors of Rameshwar Dutt, vide order dated 18.02.2014.

8. It is further submitted that the aforesaid order of the Revenue Inspector dated 18.02.2014 was challenged by the Opposite Party No.2 by filing an application under Section 34 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 before Naib Tehsildar, Rehra Bazar, District Balrampur, which was transferred to the Court of the Tehsildar, Utraula, District Balrampur.

9. It is further submitted that the Tehsildar proceeded and decided the matter on 20.05.2025 by which the publication dated 10.04.2025 has been cancelled, whereupon the order passed by Revenue Inspector on

18.02.2014 has been maintained.

10. It is further submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature, more so, the allegation levelled by the Opposite Party No.2 with regard to disappearance of his brother Parmeshwar Dutt and in the light the order 4 A482 No. 9972 of 2025 dated 20.05.2025, passed by Tehsildar, Utraula, District Balrampur, no criminal offence is made-out against the applicants. Even if the story of prosecution is taken on its face value, no such offense is made out against the applicants.

11. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 has also filed three suits for cancellation of the sale Deed of applicants nos.1 and 3, vide Regular Suits Nos. 487 of 2016, 488 of 2016 and 475 of 2016, which are pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balrampur.

12. It is submitted that the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate dated

09.09.2024 is justified because the Court has recorded the finding that matter involves the dispute of civil nature, therefore, institution of criminal proceeding is bad in the eyes of law.

13. It is submitted that order passed by the revisional Court is liable to be set-aside on the ground that property has been mutated in the name of legal of Parmeshwar Dutt and the order has been passed, thereafter, the sale deed has been executed, therefore, there is no reason to institute the criminal proceedings against the applicants.

14. It is submitted that relevant documents issued by Government of Punjab has not been considered by the revisional Court.

15. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on paragraph 120 of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and judgment passed in R. Nagender Yadav Vs. State of Telangana and Anr., reported in 2022 INSC 1285 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1725.

16. On the other hand, Shri Mohit Ashok, learned counsel for Opposite the revisional Court after Party No.2/Complainant submits appreciating the correct factual aspect had allowed the revision and passed order for reconsideration and it is a case of remand wherein there is no illegality.

17. He further submits that the trial Court erred in law and fact both for the reason that after going through the application under Section 156(3) 5 A482 No. 9972 of 2025 CrPC, it is clear case of forgery and fraud but the same has not been considered, therefore, the revisional Court rightly remanded the case for afresh consideration.

18. He further submits that Parmeshwar Dutt, the brother of opposite party no.2, left house and he had gone to Punjab and remained unmarried. The applicant no.2/Raj Kishore became instrumental in commission of fraud and forgery in connivance with area lekhpal along with Smt. Vimla Devi, Gyan Prasad and Deepak alias Pappal who became fake legal heir of Parmeshwar Dutt. The matter is very serious which requires investigation by either criminal Court or by the police. The accused wanted to grab the property of Parmeshwar Dutt, who was unmarried, that is why name of Parmeshwar Dutt was expunged and names of Smt. Vimla Devi, Gyan Prasad and Deepak alias Pappal have been recorded through proceeding of PA-11. Sale of land of Parmeshwar Dutt was executed by way of sale deed by the fake legal heirs of Parmeshwar Dutt in favour of Smt. Suman and Narisingh Pal Yadav (applicant nos.1 and 3 respectively in APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 9972 of 2025). The applicants of APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 8857 of 2025 were the revenue officials who forwarded the report to the extent that Smt. Vimla Devi, Gyan Prasad and Deepak alias Pappal were legal heirs, therefore, the land in question should be mutated in their favour.

19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

20. After going through the record and the pleadings, I find that there is allegation of intention of the applicants of usurping the property of an unmarried and missing person for which forged heirs were created and the personal namely Parmeshwar Dutt was shown to be dead. Thereafter, the sale deeds were executed through his fictitious heirs which clearly constitute a criminal offense. Similarly, in the application submitted before the trial Court under Section 156(3) CrPC, it has been stated that the complainant's brother i.e. Parmeshwar Dutt resided in Punjab where Raj Kishore had talks with Parmeshwar Dutt regarding the sale of the property. This fact was also conveyed by Parmeshwar Dutt complainant/opposite party no.2. Parmeshwar Dutt, subsequently, went 6 A482 No. 9972 of 2025 on pilgrimage and taking advantage of his disappearance Raj Kishore went to Ludhiana and under a conspiracy got declared Smt. Vimla Devi, Gyan Prasad and Deepak, alias Pappal as his legal heirs though he was unmarried. These are serious allegations levelled in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC. The allegations of inheritance of property of opposite party no.2 manipulated by Raj Kishore in collusion with revenue officials and the name of alleged heirs recorded through PA-11 have been levelled. The revisional Court has taken correct view by appreciating the fact that order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the trial Court did not consider the fact the person whose property alleged to have been misappropriated by the applicants herein had neither been shown to be dead nor it has been brought on record that he was alive.

21. The allegation in application under Section 156(3) CrPC is further very relevant to note that the name of fake illegal heirs were recorded through PA-11 in connivance with Raj Kishore and revenue officials for which certainly investigation is required. The investigation is required with regard to disappearance of brother of opposite party no.2. Unless it is inquired that he is dead or alive, whether he got married or not, or whether Smt. Vimla Devi, Gyan Prasad and Deepak, alias Pappal were legal heirs of Parmeshwar Dutt, it can not be said that launching of criminal proceedings is bad. The view taken by the revisional Court appears to be correct.

22. The application(s) are devoid of merits and are, accordingly, rejected. December 18, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.)