Hari Bhawan Singh and 2 others … v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and another

entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.434 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.37 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Udaipur, District - Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant no.2 had purchased the property in question from Gangu Singh on

23.4.2014, thereafter, the property was mutated in her name in the revenue record and property was in possession of the applicants, thereafter, Gangu Singh died in November, 2019. He further submits that an F.I.R. No.249 of 2021 under sections 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Udaipur, District Pratapgarh was lodged 2 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 by father of the applicant no.1 against Rajesh Singh (son of respondent no.2), in which a final report was submitted by the investigating officer, thereafter, due to annoyance, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the complainant (mother of Rajesh Singh) with the allegation that a sale deed dated

23.04.2014 was executed in favour of Meera Singh by an imposter of Gangu Singh. He also submits that during the course of investigation, statement of the complainant was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, two specific questions were asked from her by the investigating officer that when the sale deed was executed in the year 2014 and Gangu Singh died after seven years then why during his lifetime he has not raised any objection before the revenue authorities, she has not given any reply to any question, she stated that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged due to annoyance but all these facts were not considered by the learned court below. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the discharge application was rejected by the court below on 21.5.2024, thereafter, same was challenged before this court in Criminal Revision No.678 of 2024, which was decided on 21.06.2024, by which, order dated 21.5.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh in Crl. Misc. Case No.434 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Haribhawan Singh & Ors.) was set aside with the direction to the learned trial court to decide the discharge application afresh. The order dated 21.5.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh reads as under :- 3 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 4 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 5 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 6 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 The order dated 21.6.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.678 of 2024, reads as under :-

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. 7 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025

2. The present revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 21.05.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, District - Pratapgarh in Crl. Misc. Case No.434/2023 (State of U.P. versus Haribhawan Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.37/2022, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, Police Station - Udaipur, District - Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the property in question was purchased by revisionist no.2 from Gangu Singh on

23.04.2014 and the same was mutated in her name in the revenue record and he also submitted that Gangu Singh died in the month of November, 2019 as the purchaser was in possession after the date of purchase which was given by Gangu Singh recorded tenure holder. As on 29.12.2021 the father of the revisionist no.1 lodged one FIR against Rajesh Singh, son of the respondent no.2 as FIR No.249 of 2021, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, Police Station -Udaipur, District - Pratapgarh, to which the final report was submitted by the police and thereafter only due to annoyance FIR of case in question was lodged by the mother of Rajesh Singh with the allegation that sale-deed dated 23.04.2024 was executed in favour of Meera Singh by imposter of Gangu Singh. During the course of investigation, the statement of complainant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and specific question was asked by the Investigating Officer that sale deed was executed in the year of 2014 and after 7 years Gangu Singh died and during his life time why he has not raised objection before the revenue authority but she has not given any reply and the statement of complainant was not considered by the learned court below when specific point was taken by the applicant in the discharge application. He further submitted that no alleged offence is made out. All these facts have not considered by the learned court below and has rejected the discharge application. Therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

4. Learned AGA has conceded this fact that the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had not explained the reason as to why Gangu Singh has not raised objections on the alleged sale deed or mutation during his life time as he died after 7 years from the 8 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 date of alleged sale deed and the property was mutated and the applicant was in possession.

5. Considering the submissions of the parties and going through the contents of the impugned order as well as the statements of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and other relevant statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as the learned court below committed error in not appreciating the statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. specific questions asked by the Investigating Officer, this Court is the view that the learned court below committed error.

6. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 21.05.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, District - Pratapgarh in Crl. Misc. Case No.434/2023 (State of U.P. versus Haribhawan Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.37/2022, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, Police Station - Udaipur, District - Pratapgarh. is hereby set aside with a direction to learned court below to decide the discharge application afresh considering the statement of informant of the present case, expeditiously, if possible within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in compliance of direction of this Court dated 21.6.2024, stereotype order was passed by the presiding officer vide order dated

2.8.2025 without considering the question answer recorded by the Investigating Officer in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary. The impugned order dated 2.8.2025 passed by the court below reads as under :- 9 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 10 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025

4. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant but he does not dispute the fact that impugned order was passed in the same verbatim as passed on 21.5.2024.

5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that order dated

21.5.2024, by which, discharge application of the applicant was rejected was set aside by this Court vide order dated 21.6.2025 with a direction to pass fresh order by considering the statement 11 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. expeditiously but the impugned order was passed in the stereotype manner, in which, order dated 21.5.2024 was passed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that learned court below failed to consider the question answer recorded by the Investigating Officer, accordingly, the present application is allowed and order dated 2.8.2025 passed by the court below is hereby set aside.

6. Trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order on the discharge application of the applicant considering question answer recorded by the Investigating Officer in statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. within one month.

7. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned court below, forthwith. November 18, 2025 Gaurav (Rajeev Singh,J.) GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.434 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.37 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Udaipur, District - Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant no.2 had purchased the property in question from Gangu Singh on

23.4.2014, thereafter, the property was mutated in her name in the revenue record and property was in possession of the applicants, thereafter, Gangu Singh died in November, 2019. He further submits that an F.I.R. No.249 of 2021 under sections 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Udaipur, District Pratapgarh was lodged 2 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 by father of the applicant no.1 against Rajesh Singh (son of respondent no.2), in which a final report was submitted by the investigating officer, thereafter, due to annoyance, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged by the complainant (mother of Rajesh Singh) with the allegation that a sale deed dated

23.04.2014 was executed in favour of Meera Singh by an imposter of Gangu Singh. He also submits that during the course of investigation, statement of the complainant was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., in which, two specific questions were asked from her by the investigating officer that when the sale deed was executed in the year 2014 and Gangu Singh died after seven years then why during his lifetime he has not raised any objection before the revenue authorities, she has not given any reply to any question, she stated that F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged due to annoyance but all these facts were not considered by the learned court below. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the discharge application was rejected by the court below on 21.5.2024, thereafter, same was challenged before this court in Criminal Revision No.678 of 2024, which was decided on 21.06.2024, by which, order dated 21.5.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh in Crl. Misc. Case No.434 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Haribhawan Singh & Ors.) was set aside with the direction to the learned trial court to decide the discharge application afresh. The order dated 21.5.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh reads as under :- 3 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 4 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 5 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 6 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 The order dated 21.6.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.678 of 2024, reads as under :-

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA. 7 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025

2. The present revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 21.05.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, District - Pratapgarh in Crl. Misc. Case No.434/2023 (State of U.P. versus Haribhawan Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.37/2022, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, Police Station - Udaipur, District - Pratapgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the property in question was purchased by revisionist no.2 from Gangu Singh on

23.04.2014 and the same was mutated in her name in the revenue record and he also submitted that Gangu Singh died in the month of November, 2019 as the purchaser was in possession after the date of purchase which was given by Gangu Singh recorded tenure holder. As on 29.12.2021 the father of the revisionist no.1 lodged one FIR against Rajesh Singh, son of the respondent no.2 as FIR No.249 of 2021, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, Police Station -Udaipur, District - Pratapgarh, to which the final report was submitted by the police and thereafter only due to annoyance FIR of case in question was lodged by the mother of Rajesh Singh with the allegation that sale-deed dated 23.04.2024 was executed in favour of Meera Singh by imposter of Gangu Singh. During the course of investigation, the statement of complainant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and specific question was asked by the Investigating Officer that sale deed was executed in the year of 2014 and after 7 years Gangu Singh died and during his life time why he has not raised objection before the revenue authority but she has not given any reply and the statement of complainant was not considered by the learned court below when specific point was taken by the applicant in the discharge application. He further submitted that no alleged offence is made out. All these facts have not considered by the learned court below and has rejected the discharge application. Therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

4. Learned AGA has conceded this fact that the victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had not explained the reason as to why Gangu Singh has not raised objections on the alleged sale deed or mutation during his life time as he died after 7 years from the 8 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 date of alleged sale deed and the property was mutated and the applicant was in possession.

5. Considering the submissions of the parties and going through the contents of the impugned order as well as the statements of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and other relevant statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as the learned court below committed error in not appreciating the statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. specific questions asked by the Investigating Officer, this Court is the view that the learned court below committed error.

6. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 21.05.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalganj, District - Pratapgarh in Crl. Misc. Case No.434/2023 (State of U.P. versus Haribhawan Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.37/2022, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC, Police Station - Udaipur, District - Pratapgarh. is hereby set aside with a direction to learned court below to decide the discharge application afresh considering the statement of informant of the present case, expeditiously, if possible within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in compliance of direction of this Court dated 21.6.2024, stereotype order was passed by the presiding officer vide order dated

2.8.2025 without considering the question answer recorded by the Investigating Officer in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary. The impugned order dated 2.8.2025 passed by the court below reads as under :- 9 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 10 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025

4. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant but he does not dispute the fact that impugned order was passed in the same verbatim as passed on 21.5.2024.

5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that order dated

21.5.2024, by which, discharge application of the applicant was rejected was set aside by this Court vide order dated 21.6.2025 with a direction to pass fresh order by considering the statement 11 A482 No. - 9320 of 2025 of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. expeditiously but the impugned order was passed in the stereotype manner, in which, order dated 21.5.2024 was passed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that learned court below failed to consider the question answer recorded by the Investigating Officer, accordingly, the present application is allowed and order dated 2.8.2025 passed by the court below is hereby set aside.

6. Trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order on the discharge application of the applicant considering question answer recorded by the Investigating Officer in statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. within one month.

7. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned court below, forthwith. November 18, 2025 Gaurav (Rajeev Singh,J.) GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench