High Court · 2025

3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the present proceedings were initiated on the basis of an application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as complaint case and statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. The applicant was summoned by means of order dated 06.10.2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Ayodhya. On his appearance before the trial court, the applicant moved an application for discharge, which has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 09.08.2024.

4. The brief facts according to the informant is that one Mangaru is the real uncle of Liyakat Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Bhuttu. All three persons had died issueless and it has been alleged that Mangaru has grabbed the land of his deceased relatives Liyakat Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Bhuttu falsely claiming that his deceased relatives had died issueless despite the fact that successors of late Liyakat Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Bhuttu are still surviving. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the trial court duly considered the application for discharge.

5. In the complaint, it was further stated that at the relevant time, the applicant was posted on the post of Lekhpal and before him all the false and fabricated statements were made to the effect that Liyakat Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Bhuttu had died issueless and the applicant in his official capacity has forwarded the said report to the concerned Tehsildar for passing appropriate orders in proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code.

6. The trial court has duly considered the grounds raised by the applicant. The applicant has submitted that even before the Tehsildar, the said statements were given and the copies of the said statements have been annexed before this Court also.

7. It is case of the applicant that he was merely acting his official capacity and he was duty bound to record the statements of the concerned persons and forward his report to the Tehsildar for appropriate action and accordingly, on the aforesaid facts, no prosecution can be initiated against the applicant and prayed for interference by this Court.

8. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has submitted that at the stage of discharge preferred by the applicant under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., the only material before the trial court was the statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. and the complaint. He further submits that on the basis of the aforesaid material, on being satisfied that the summoning order was issued. It was further stated that the documents which relied upon by applicant in his defence cannot be looked into by the trial court at this stage unless without being unimpeachable character and all the grounds raised by the applicant are in-fact the defence which may be led by him at the appropriate stage of trial.

9. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, it is noticed that allegations against the applicant pertain to participating in an incident where false statements were made before him to the effect that relative of complainant, Liyakat Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Bhuttu had died issueless. It is on the basis of the aforesaid assertions, the property was alleged to be usurped by one Mangaru at the behest of whom the proceedings were initiated. It is the complainant who claims himself to be the descendant of the said persons and claims that the property in-fact was devolved upon him rather than Mangaru. He has further stated that false statements were made before the applicant in his capacity as a Lekhpal and he had accordingly participated in fabrication of evidence, which was to be placed before the Tehsildar. Accordingly, considering the statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and 202 Cr.P.C., it was clearly stated the descendant of Liyakat Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Bhuttu are still alive and clear allegations have also been levelled against the applicant for having participated in fabricating the documents, which would evident that the said persons have died issueless so that property can be illegally transferred in favour of Mangaru.

10. At the stage of discharge only the evidence that form the part of charge-sheet has to be considered. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has also reiterated the same in the case of Rajnish Kumar Bishwarma Vs. State of NCT of DElhi and another reported in 2024 Live Law (SC) 937 has held in paragraph no. 6 as under:- "6. To say the least, the High Court has committed a gross error by directing the Trial Court to consider the decree of nullity and appeal preferred by the second respondent at the time of framing of charge. The submission of the learned ASG is that by relying upon the said documents which are not part of charge-sheet, the appellant can always pray for discharge. In the case of State of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, this Court has reiterated the well-settled law that while considering the prayer for discharge, the Trial Court cannot consider any document which is not the part of the charge-sheet. Contrary to law laid down by this Court, the High Court has directed the Trial Court to consider the documents which are not part of the charge-sheet at the time of framing of charge. Thus, the directions given by the High Court are completely illegal." 11. In light of the aforesaid fact, it cannot be said that no offence against the applicant is made out and accordingly, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated

09.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II/J.M. Ayodhya in Complaint No. 1829 of 2024.

12. The application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (482 Cr.P.C.) being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. . Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Virendra (Alok Mathur, J.) VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the present proceedings were initiated on the basis of an application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as complaint case and statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. The applicant was summoned by means of order dated 06.10.2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Ayodhya. On his appearance before the trial court, the applicant moved an application for discharge, which has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 09.08.2024.

4. The brief facts according to the informant is that one Mangaru is the real uncle of Liyakat Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Bhuttu. All three persons had died issueless and it has been alleged that Mangaru has grabbed the land of his deceased relatives Liyakat Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Bhuttu falsely claiming that his deceased relatives had died issueless despite the fact that successors of late Liyakat Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Bhuttu are still surviving. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the trial court duly considered the application for discharge.

5. In the complaint, it was further stated that at the relevant time, the applicant was posted on the post of Lekhpal and before him all the false and fabricated statements were made to the effect that Liyakat Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Bhuttu had died issueless and the applicant in his official capacity has forwarded the said report to the concerned Tehsildar for passing appropriate orders in proceedings under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code.

6. The trial court has duly considered the grounds raised by the applicant. The applicant has submitted that even before the Tehsildar, the said statements were given and the copies of the said statements have been annexed before this Court also.

7. It is case of the applicant that he was merely acting his official capacity and he was duty bound to record the statements of the concerned persons and forward his report to the Tehsildar for appropriate action and accordingly, on the aforesaid facts, no prosecution can be initiated against the applicant and prayed for interference by this Court.

8. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has submitted that at the stage of discharge preferred by the applicant under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., the only material before the trial court was the statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. and the complaint. He further submits that on the basis of the aforesaid material, on being satisfied that the summoning order was issued. It was further stated that the documents which relied upon by applicant in his defence cannot be looked into by the trial court at this stage unless without being unimpeachable character and all the grounds raised by the applicant are in-fact the defence which may be led by him at the appropriate stage of trial.

9. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, it is noticed that allegations against the applicant pertain to participating in an incident where false statements were made before him to the effect that relative of complainant, Liyakat Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Bhuttu had died issueless. It is on the basis of the aforesaid assertions, the property was alleged to be usurped by one Mangaru at the behest of whom the proceedings were initiated. It is the complainant who claims himself to be the descendant of the said persons and claims that the property in-fact was devolved upon him rather than Mangaru. He has further stated that false statements were made before the applicant in his capacity as a Lekhpal and he had accordingly participated in fabrication of evidence, which was to be placed before the Tehsildar. Accordingly, considering the statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and 202 Cr.P.C., it was clearly stated the descendant of Liyakat Ali, Mumtaz Ali and Bhuttu are still alive and clear allegations have also been levelled against the applicant for having participated in fabricating the documents, which would evident that the said persons have died issueless so that property can be illegally transferred in favour of Mangaru.

10. At the stage of discharge only the evidence that form the part of charge-sheet has to be considered. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has also reiterated the same in the case of Rajnish Kumar Bishwarma Vs. State of NCT of DElhi and another reported in 2024 Live Law (SC) 937 has held in paragraph no. 6 as under:- "6. To say the least, the High Court has committed a gross error by directing the Trial Court to consider the decree of nullity and appeal preferred by the second respondent at the time of framing of charge. The submission of the learned ASG is that by relying upon the said documents which are not part of charge-sheet, the appellant can always pray for discharge. In the case of State of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, this Court has reiterated the well-settled law that while considering the prayer for discharge, the Trial Court cannot consider any document which is not the part of the charge-sheet. Contrary to law laid down by this Court, the High Court has directed the Trial Court to consider the documents which are not part of the charge-sheet at the time of framing of charge. Thus, the directions given by the High Court are completely illegal." 11. In light of the aforesaid fact, it cannot be said that no offence against the applicant is made out and accordingly, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated

09.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II/J.M. Ayodhya in Complaint No. 1829 of 2024.

12. The application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (482 Cr.P.C.) being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. . Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Virendra (Alok Mathur, J.) VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench