High Court · 2025

The trial Court, while appreciating the aforesaid contents made by the applicant in the aforesaid application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and also gone through the record, has returned to finding that applicant has asserted that a fake sale deed has been settled and also a fake cheque has been given, however, it was not clear whether the said sale deed has been declared fake by the competent Court or not and unless a registered sale deed is not declared fake by the competent court, prima facie, it cannot be considered as fake. Moreso, there is a provision for filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding issuance of fake cheque and non-payment. In these backdrop, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by Page No. 4 of 7 the applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. vide order dated

19.09.2012. (5) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19.09.2012, the applicant has filed Criminal Revision No. 523 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Sultanpur, who, vide order dated 05.09.2016, affirmed the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 19.09.2012 (supra) and dismissed the revision. (6) Both the aforesaid orders dated 19.09.2012 and 05.09.2016 have been challenged by the applicant in the present application. (7) Assailing the impugned orders, learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that prima facie the sale deed was executed without making any payment, therefore, the sale deed was obtained by fraud but the trial Court, without appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has erroneously rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as also the revision. (8) Learned AGA, on the other hand, has contended that applicant has alleged in his application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. about execution of a fake sale deed, issuance of a fake cheque and also its non-payment. So far as the allegation of fake sale deed is concerned, according to the learned AGA, it cannot be Page No. 5 of 7 ascertained whether the document as alleged is forged or not, without the competent court declaring the registered sale deed to be fake or not. So far as the allegation of fake cheque and its non-payment is concerned, it has been contended by the learned AGA that there is a provision for filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of issuance of fake cheque and its non-payment. Hence, his submission is that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as also the revision. (9) Having regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record available before this Court including the impugned orders, this Court deem it apt to mention that while dealing with application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the First Information Report sought to be lodged by the applicant had any substance or not. If the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. prima facie appear to be without any substance, then in such case the Magistrate can refuse to direct registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police, even if the application contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence. In such case, the Magistrate is fully competent to reject the application. (10) In Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh : (2010) 12 SCC 112, the Apex Court has held that where the executant of a deed wants it Page No. 6 of 7 to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. (11) What follows from the above settled position of law is that an executant can seek cancellation of a registered instrument on the ground of fraud, by filing a suit. (12) During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the applicant states that opposite party no.3 has filed mutation application which was allowed, against which applicant has filed an appeal, which is pending. He also states that a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, bearing Regular Suit No. 137 of 2012, has also been filed by the applicant and the same is also pending. (13) In view of the aforesaid, reasoning given by the trial Court while rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as also the revision are perfectly justified and there is no illegality or perversity. The applicant has agitated the issue whether the sale deed in question is forged or not, by filing the aforesaid suit and the same is pending. (14) So far as cheque bounce and non-payment of the amount as alleged in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is concerned, the trial Court has rightly observed that there is a Page No. 7 of 7 provision for filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding issuance of fake cheque and non-payment. (15) Considering the nature of allegations and entire facts of the matter, it cannot be said that impugned orders are suffering from any such patent illegality or abuse of the process of law so as to require any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (16) The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no force and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Ajit (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) AJIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

The trial Court, while appreciating the aforesaid contents made by the applicant in the aforesaid application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and also gone through the record, has returned to finding that applicant has asserted that a fake sale deed has been settled and also a fake cheque has been given, however, it was not clear whether the said sale deed has been declared fake by the competent Court or not and unless a registered sale deed is not declared fake by the competent court, prima facie, it cannot be considered as fake. Moreso, there is a provision for filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding issuance of fake cheque and non-payment. In these backdrop, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by Page No. 4 of 7 the applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. vide order dated

19.09.2012. (5) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19.09.2012, the applicant has filed Criminal Revision No. 523 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Sultanpur, who, vide order dated 05.09.2016, affirmed the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 19.09.2012 (supra) and dismissed the revision. (6) Both the aforesaid orders dated 19.09.2012 and 05.09.2016 have been challenged by the applicant in the present application. (7) Assailing the impugned orders, learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that prima facie the sale deed was executed without making any payment, therefore, the sale deed was obtained by fraud but the trial Court, without appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has erroneously rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as also the revision. (8) Learned AGA, on the other hand, has contended that applicant has alleged in his application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. about execution of a fake sale deed, issuance of a fake cheque and also its non-payment. So far as the allegation of fake sale deed is concerned, according to the learned AGA, it cannot be Page No. 5 of 7 ascertained whether the document as alleged is forged or not, without the competent court declaring the registered sale deed to be fake or not. So far as the allegation of fake cheque and its non-payment is concerned, it has been contended by the learned AGA that there is a provision for filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of issuance of fake cheque and its non-payment. Hence, his submission is that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as also the revision. (9) Having regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record available before this Court including the impugned orders, this Court deem it apt to mention that while dealing with application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Magistrate is required to apply its mind to find out whether the First Information Report sought to be lodged by the applicant had any substance or not. If the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. prima facie appear to be without any substance, then in such case the Magistrate can refuse to direct registration of the FIR and its investigation by the police, even if the application contains the allegations of commission of a cognizable offence. In such case, the Magistrate is fully competent to reject the application. (10) In Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh : (2010) 12 SCC 112, the Apex Court has held that where the executant of a deed wants it Page No. 6 of 7 to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. (11) What follows from the above settled position of law is that an executant can seek cancellation of a registered instrument on the ground of fraud, by filing a suit. (12) During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the applicant states that opposite party no.3 has filed mutation application which was allowed, against which applicant has filed an appeal, which is pending. He also states that a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, bearing Regular Suit No. 137 of 2012, has also been filed by the applicant and the same is also pending. (13) In view of the aforesaid, reasoning given by the trial Court while rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as also the revision are perfectly justified and there is no illegality or perversity. The applicant has agitated the issue whether the sale deed in question is forged or not, by filing the aforesaid suit and the same is pending. (14) So far as cheque bounce and non-payment of the amount as alleged in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is concerned, the trial Court has rightly observed that there is a Page No. 7 of 7 provision for filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding issuance of fake cheque and non-payment. (15) Considering the nature of allegations and entire facts of the matter, it cannot be said that impugned orders are suffering from any such patent illegality or abuse of the process of law so as to require any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (16) The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no force and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Ajit (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) AJIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench