Anil Kumar Agarwal v. Presence

registration of an FIR was rejected.

2. The applicant also seeks to set aside the revisional order dated

01.06.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2016 affirming the said order.

3. The applicant claims that one Raja Ram, a member of Thakur Ramchandra Ji Maharaj Virajman Shivji Maharaj Mandir Samiti, Kashipur, adopted his son, Aamod Kumar Agarwal, on 29.12.2000, and this adoption was duly registered. 1 Criminal Misc. Application No.163 of 2018-------- Anil Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand and others Ashish Naithani J.

4. It is further stated that on 15.12.2001, Raja Ram publicly declared in the Trust proceedings that Aamod Kumar Agarwal would be his legal heir and successor, and that such declaration was duly recorded in the Trust register. The applicant asserts that all rights within the Trust were conferred upon his son, who, after attaining majority, became entitled to full participation therein.

5. The crux of the grievance is that respondents Nos. 2 to 5, all members of the managing committee of the Trust, allegedly conspired to suppress the adoption deed and thereby deprive the applicant’s son of his purported rightful position in the Trust.

6. On 16.01.2016, the applicant sent a legal notice through counsel, seeking recognition of the adoption and associated rights. When no action was taken, representations were made to the local police on

17.12.2015 and again on 03.02.2016, but no FIR was registered. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, which was rejected by the Magistrate on 21.03.2016, and the said rejection was upheld in revision on 01.06.2017.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the courts below failed to appreciate the material on record, particularly the Trust register proceedings and the adoption deed, which demonstrate that the applicant’s son had been legally adopted and was vested with rights as a successor.

8. It was contended that the respondents (no.2-5), despite being trustees and custodians of the Trust property and records, deliberately suppressed the existence of the adoption deed, denied access to Trust documents, and unlawfully alienated Trust assets in violation of the directions and intentions of Raja Ram. 2 Criminal Misc. Application No.163 of 2018-------- Anil Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand and others Ashish Naithani J.

9. Learned counsel argued that the alleged acts of forging the signatures of a minor on blank documents, denying legal status to an adopted heir, and fraudulently issuing tenancy in Trust shops amount to serious cognizable offences including criminal breach of trust, forgery, cheating, and conspiracy under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant further urged that the learned Magistrate acted mechanically and without application of mind in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, and that the revisional court committed a grave error in upholding such a perverse and non-speaking order. The applicant seeks restoration of his son's status through a criminal investigation that will compel the respondents to disclose and produce the relevant Trust documents.

11. Per contra, learned State Counsel submitted that the present matter relates to an internal dispute over succession and control of a private religious Trust and does not disclose any cognizable offence requiring police investigation.

12. It was argued that the applicant has primarily raised issues about recognising his son's alleged status within the Trust, which is essentially a matter of civil adjudication and not within the domain of criminal prosecution.

13. Learned counsel further submitted that the forgery allegations are bald and unsupported by any specific material or expert opinion. There is no mention of any forged document being used in a judicial proceeding, nor are there any particulars about who forged what, when, or for what purpose. 3 Criminal Misc. Application No.163 of 2018-------- Anil Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand and others Ashish Naithani J.

14. It was also contended that allowing criminal proceedings on such vague and unsubstantiated allegations would amount to an abuse of the criminal justice process and would set a precedent for converting civil and trust-related disputes into criminal complaints merely to coerce the other side.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

16. The power under Section 156(3) CrPC is discretionary and to be exercised judiciously. It is well settled that this provision enables the Magistrate to direct police investigation only when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence and investigation is necessary for gathering evidence.

17. In the present case, the gravamen of the dispute concerns the applicant’s assertion that Raja Ram adopted his son and thereby became entitled to rights in a private religious Trust. The applicant alleges denial of those rights and concealment of associated documents by the managing trustees.

18. Even if accepted as true, these allegations do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. Whether the adoption deed conferred legal status, whether the son was rightfully recorded as a successor, and whether the Trust’s decisions were valid are questions that fall squarely within the civil law domain. Civil courts are well- equipped to adjudicate such disputes upon properly framing issues and examining evidence.

19. The allegations of forgery are general and speculative. The applicant does not identify any specific forged document or produce 4 Criminal Misc. Application No.163 of 2018-------- Anil Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand and others Ashish Naithani J. comparative material or expert opinion to prima facie establish forgery. In HDFC Securities Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 1 SCC 640, the Supreme Court cautioned against entertaining criminal proceedings that are essentially civil disputes cloaked in criminal terminology.

20. Further, the settled legal position, as laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287, is that the power under Section 156(3) CrPC should not be used casually or routinely. The Magistrate must apply his mind and be satisfied that a cognizable offence is made out before directing registration of FIR. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has considered the contents and found no such ground. The revisional court has independently concurred with the same.

21. The learned Magistrate noted the absence of any specific material suggesting forgery or criminal breach of trust, and the Revisional Court concurred, observing that the applicant’s grievance arose from disputed civil rights.

22. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, this Court is not to sit as an appellate forum to reassess the findings unless there is patent illegality or miscarriage of justice. The orders passed by the courts below are neither perverse nor illegal to call for interference.

23. The mere denial of rights by a Trust or refusal to recognize a claimant’s succession cannot give rise to a criminal cause of action. The allegations here lack the specificity, factual foundation, and legal ingredients necessary to sustain a charge of criminality. 5 Criminal Misc. Application No.163 of 2018-------- Anil Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand and others Ashish Naithani J.

24. The applicant is free to seek redressal before an appropriate civil forum, but cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for what is essentially a succession-based trust dispute. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. However, the applicant shall be at liberty to pursue appropriate civil remedies, in accordance with law, if so advised. (Ashish Naithani, J) Dated:05.06.2025 NR/ NITESH RAWA T RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc39 88ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4 758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C4474 34E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B71 08B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD03 C, cn=NITESH RAWAT +05'30' 6 Criminal Misc. Application No.163 of 2018-------- Anil Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand and others Ashish Naithani J.