# Chandraprakash Yadav & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr. 1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1261
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 814 of 2025
- **Bench:** Abdul Shahid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandraprakash-yadav-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-1262-indian-law-52739
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

G.A., Mayank Upadhyay, Shiv Sagar Singh

Issue for Consideration
Whether, in the facts of the case, the
continuance of criminal proceedings arising out
of allegations relating to forged wills and
property dispute, when a prior civil suit
concerning validity of the wills was already
pending, amounted to abuse of the process of
law, and whether the revisionists were entitled
to be discharged from offences under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
ss.397, 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B - Discharge
- Civil dispute given colour of criminal
offence - Forged will - Pending civil suit
-
Abuse
of
process
-
Revisional
jurisdiction - Order of discharge justified.

Held:

Where
the
dispute
between
the
parties
essentially related to title and succession to
property, based on competing wills dated
17.03.2015 and 11.01.2017, and the validity of
both the wills was already sub judice in a civil
suit instituted much prior to lodging of the FIR,
initiation
and
continuance
of
criminal
proceedings on the same allegations was liable
to be examined with circumspection. [Paras 14,
21-22]

The Court noted that the civil suit (O.S. No. 275
of 2017) was filed on 12.10.2017, whereas the
FIR in question was lodged later on 13.10.2019,
pursuant to an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. The pendency of civil proceedings prior in
point of time was a significant factor indicating
that the dispute was predominantly civil in
nature. [Paras 14, 22]

It was further noticed that the probate
application concerning the will dated 17.03.2015
had been dismissed in default and not on
merits, and therefore did not conclusively
determine the legality of the said will. [Paras 13,
21]

The Court found substance in the contention
that the criminal proceedings appeared to have
been initiated as a pressure tactic in a civil
dispute, particularly when one of the persons
named as accused in the FIR had already died
prior to lodging of the FIR, thereby reflecting
mala fides. [Paras 17, 24]

Relying
on
the
principle
that
criminal
proceedings
should
not
be
permitted
to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
persecution, and that a purely civil dispute
cannot be dressed up as a criminal offence, the
Court held that continuation of proceedings
against the revisionists amounted to abuse of
process of law. [Paras 19, 25]

Accordingly,
the
impugned
order
dated
06.01.2025 passed by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur, so far as it
related to the revisionists, was set aside, and
the revisionists were discharged from the
offences alleged.[Paras 26-27]
Criminal revision was allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Inder
Mohan
Goswami
v.
State
of
Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 - relied on;
Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and Another,
(2022) 5 SCC 720 - relied on; Urmila Devi and
Others v. Balram and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1574 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Discharge; Civil dispute; Forged will; Pending
civil suit; Abuse of process; Criminal revision;
Revisional jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
06.01.2025
passed
by
the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur
in Case No. 121071 of 2021 (State v. Chandra
Prakash Yadav and others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 375 of 2019, under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, Police Station
Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur.
11 All. Chandraprakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1263
Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionists: Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman
Khan, Sri Saddam Husain
For Opposite Party No. 2:Sri Shiv Sagar Singh,
assisted by Sri Mayank Upadhyaya
For the State: Learned A.G.A.

## Text

11 All. Chandraprakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1261

21. In case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs.
Nabi Hassan Saheb and Another; 2004 (1)
SCC 191, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as under in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11:-

"10. The decisions cited and relied
on behalf of the appellant turned on the facts of
each of those cases. They are distinguishable.
There is no absolute rule that the transferee
pendente-lite without leave of the court should
in all cases be allowed to join and contest the
pending suits. The decision relied on behalf of
the contesting respondents of this court in the
case of Savinder Singh (supra) fully supports
them in their contentions. After quoting section
52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the relevant
observations are thus :-

"Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act envisages that :-

'During the pendency in any court
having authority within the limits of India .. of
any suit or proceeding which is not collusive
and in which any right to immovable property
is directly and specifically in question, the
property cannot be transferred or otherwise
dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding
so as to affect the rights of any other party
thereto under the decree or order which may be
made therein, except under the authority of the
court and on such terms as it may impose.'

It would, therefore, be clear that the
defendants in the suit were prohibited by
operation of section 52 to deal with the
property and could not transfer or otherwise
deal with it in any way affecting the rights of the
appellant except with the order or authority of
the court. Admittedly, the authority or order of
the court had not been obtained for alienation
of those properties. Therefore, the alienation
obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lis
pendens by operation of section 52. Under
these circumstances, the respondents cannot be
considered to be either necessary or proper
parties to the suit. "

11. In case of Dhurandhar Prasad
Singh, observations relevant for the purpose of
these appeals read thus:-

"Where a party does not ask for
leave, he takes the obvious risk that the suit may
not be property conducted by the plaintiff on
record, yet he will be bound by the result of the
litigation even though he is not represented at
the hearing unless it is shown that the litigation
was not properly conducted by the original
party or he colluded with the adversary."

22. In the present case, the respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 have not acquired any right in the
property in dispute as there is only an
agreement to sell in their favour and not a sale
deed. The proposed vendee in an agreement to
sell in his favour do not get any right in law or
even in equity with regard to the property
covered under the agreement and has only right
to get another deed executed. Therefore, in my
view a person having an agreement to sell in his
favour is neither necessary nor a proper party to
the suit. The court has erroneously allowed the
application for impleadment filed by respondent
Nos. 4 and 5.

23. The court below has acted in exercise of
its jurisdiction with material irregularity. The
judgment and order dated 29.08.2023 is hereby set
aside. The revision is allowed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1261
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

Criminal Revision No. 814 of 2025

Chandraprakash Yadav & Ors.
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, Saddam Husain

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Mayank Upadhyay, Shiv Sagar Singh

Issue for Consideration
Whether, in the facts of the case, the
continuance of criminal proceedings arising out
of allegations relating to forged wills and
property dispute, when a prior civil suit
concerning validity of the wills was already
pending, amounted to abuse of the process of
law, and whether the revisionists were entitled
to be discharged from offences under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
ss.397, 401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B - Discharge
- Civil dispute given colour of criminal
offence - Forged will - Pending civil suit
-
Abuse
of
process
-
Revisional
jurisdiction - Order of discharge justified.

Held:

Where
the
dispute
between
the
parties
essentially related to title and succession to
property, based on competing wills dated
17.03.2015 and 11.01.2017, and the validity of
both the wills was already sub judice in a civil
suit instituted much prior to lodging of the FIR,
initiation
and
continuance
of
criminal
proceedings on the same allegations was liable
to be examined with circumspection. [Paras 14,
21-22]

The Court noted that the civil suit (O.S. No. 275
of 2017) was filed on 12.10.2017, whereas the
FIR in question was lodged later on 13.10.2019,
pursuant to an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. The pendency of civil proceedings prior in
point of time was a significant factor indicating
that the dispute was predominantly civil in
nature. [Paras 14, 22]

It was further noticed that the probate
application concerning the will dated 17.03.2015
had been dismissed in default and not on
merits, and therefore did not conclusively
determine the legality of the said will. [Paras 13,
21]

The Court found substance in the contention
that the criminal proceedings appeared to have
been initiated as a pressure tactic in a civil
dispute, particularly when one of the persons
named as accused in the FIR had already died
prior to lodging of the FIR, thereby reflecting
mala fides. [Paras 17, 24]

Relying
on
the
principle
that
criminal
proceedings
should
not
be
permitted
to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
persecution, and that a purely civil dispute
cannot be dressed up as a criminal offence, the
Court held that continuation of proceedings
against the revisionists amounted to abuse of
process of law. [Paras 19, 25]

Accordingly,
the
impugned
order
dated
06.01.2025 passed by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur, so far as it
related to the revisionists, was set aside, and
the revisionists were discharged from the
offences alleged.[Paras 26-27]
Criminal revision was allowed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Inder
Mohan
Goswami
v.
State
of
Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 - relied on;
Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and Another,
(2022) 5 SCC 720 - relied on; Urmila Devi and
Others v. Balram and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1574 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Discharge; Civil dispute; Forged will; Pending
civil suit; Abuse of process; Criminal revision;
Revisional jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
Order
dated
06.01.2025
passed
by
the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur
in Case No. 121071 of 2021 (State v. Chandra
Prakash Yadav and others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 375 of 2019, under Sections 419,
420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, Police Station
Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur.
11 All. Chandraprakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1263
Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionists: Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman
Khan, Sri Saddam Husain
For Opposite Party No. 2:Sri Shiv Sagar Singh,
assisted by Sri Mayank Upadhyaya
For the State: Learned A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Shahid, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman
Khan, learned counsel for the revisionists,
learned AGA for the State and Sri Shiv
Sagar Singh, assisted by Sri Mayank
Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no.2.

2. This criminal revision is preferred
against the order dated 6.1.2025, passed by
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
First, Gorakhpur in Case No. 121071 of
2021 (State Vs. Chandra Prakash Yadav
and others) arising out of case crime No.
375 of 2019, under Section 419, 420, 467,
468 and 120-B IPC, Police Station
Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur.

3. The brief contents of the case is that
the First Information Report of the incident
was lodged on 13.10.2019, at case crime
No. 375 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471 IPC. The named persons in
the FIR are (1) Ravindra Kumar Singh, (2)
Arvind Nagpal, (3) Sanjay Nagpal, (4)
Chandra Prakash Yadav, (5) Sushil Narula,
(6) Salim Khan, (7) Shamsher Singh
Yadav, (8) Ram Pal Yadav and (9) Pramod
Kumar Bhandari.

4.
The
complainant,
Hariom
Gupta/opposite party no.2 has lodged
F.I.R., stating that the Sri Triloki Nath
Gupta, husband of Smt. Ramrati Gupta,
died on 9.5.2001. Smt. Ramrati Gupta had
adopted Satish Kumar Gupta, brother of the
complainant, way of registered adoption
deed
dated
21.11.2001.
Complainant/
Hariom Gupta, alongwith his brother
Ashish Gupta and Satish Gupta were
consistently looking after the affairs of
movable and immovable properties of Smt.
Ramrati Gupta during her life time. Now,
Satish Gupta is doing coaching for postgraduate at Kanpur after completion of his
MBBS. During the life time of Smt.
Ramrati Gupta, she appointed several
persons for looking after all affairs of her
properties at Kanpur and Gorakhpur. She
had appointed Ravindra Kumar Singh at
Kanpur, who after gaining confidence of
her, had obtained signature of Smt. Ramrati
Gupta on printed and on some blank
papers. He had mala fide intention to use
those blank documents. Smt. Ramrati
Gupta due to her old age, executed a
registered will dated 11.1.2017 for all her
moveable and immoveable properties in
favour of Hariom Gupta/complainant, his
brother Ashish Gupta and Satish Gupta.
She had previously executed a registered
will dated 24.10.2016, which she had
cancelled and finally executed her will
dated 11.1.2017. Ravindra Kumar Singh
with his mala fide intention to grab the
property of Smt. Ramrati Gupta with
collusion of Arvind Nagpal, Sanjay Nagpal,
Chandra Prakash Yadav, Sushil Narula, had
framed a forged will of Smt. Ramrati
Gupta. Said Ravindra Kumar Singh had
presented that forged will in different
institutiond and departments to grab all the
properties of Smt. Ramrati Gupta and
claimed himself as owner, hence he filed
the
present
complaint.
Salim
Khan,
Shamsher Singh Yadav had also conspired
with Ravindra Kumar Singh in that mala
fide act. Smt. Ramrati Gupta died on
9.3.2017. After death of Smt. Ramrati
Gupta, Ravindra Kumar Singh had further
aggravated use of forged will alongwith
Arvind Nagpal, Sanjay Nagpal, Chandra
Prakash Yadav, Sushil Narula and Salim
1264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Khan and witnesses of fabricated will,
Ramphal Yadav and Pramod Kumar
Bhandari.

5. After investigation, charge sheet has
been filed against Ravindra Kumar Singh,
Arvind and Sanjay Nagpal on 22.11.2020.
A supplementary charge sheet was also
filed against rest of the accused.

6. The revisionists had filed an
application for discharge on 12.9.2024 with
the contention that the investigation is false
and fabricated. The Investigating Officer
after collecting all the evidences had not
sent them for verification to Forensic
Science Laboratory. He did not seek any
opinion of any expert. He did not verify
that will dated 17.3.2015 executed by late
Ramrati Gupta whether that will having her
signature
is
genuine,
authentic
and
legitimate, false, forged and fabricated. The
Investigating
Officer
arbitrarily
and
without
any
supporting
verification
document, he had accepted the will dated
11.1.2017 which was produced by the
complainant and on the basis of statement
of witnesses, the Investigating Officer
declared will dated 17.3.2015 as incorrect
and thereafter filed charge sheet. The
alleged will dated 11.1.2017 is still a
doubtful document whether that was
executed by late Smt. Ramrati Gupta or
not. Late Ramrati Gupta had seriously
suffering from kidney disease and she was
continuously on dialysis. Due to his
extreme illness, Smt. Ramrati Gupta was
admitted in Regency Hospital, Kanpur on
11.9.2016 and her kidney was failed and
thereafter her other organs were also
deteriorated in functioning. She had lost her
proper mental faculties and also lost her
senses. The medical certificate issued by
Regency Hospital, Kanpur to Smt. Ramrati
Gupta on 27.9.2016, in which it is
specifically mentioned that she was having
properties of billions and she has no legal
heir. Hariom Gupta/complainant is son of
brother of late Ramrati Gupta. All these
brother started conspiracy to usurp the
property of late Ramrati Gupta. During that
conspiracy, they had discharged Smt.
Ramrati Gupta in unconscious condition
from the Regency Hospital on 14.10.2016
and took her to her residence at Gorakhpur.
They conspired with each other and in
unconscious condition, they created false
and fabricated will with collusion of
officials of Registry office. The will dated
11.1.2017 is a doubtful document because
of all acts on all the documents of school
and college, which was performed by Smt.
Ramrati Gupta, she always put her
signature,whereas
on
the
will
dated
11.1.2017, there is thumb impression of
Smt. Ramrati Gupta. It is categorically
clear that the will is neither with her
consent nor in her knowledge. Smt.
Ramrati Gupta was not in her full senses.
Hariom Gupta/complainant having an evil
eye on the properties of late Ramrati Gupta,
due to that reason, adoption deed which
was executed in favour of Satish Gupta, but
rest two brothers Ashish Gupta and Hariom
Gupta were working in management
committee
of
Triloki
Nath
Smarak
Uchchattar
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya
by
mentioning the name of Triloki Nath Gupta
as their father since 2002 and 2003 by
deleting the name of their biological father,
whereas, no adoption deed was ever
executed
in
favour
of
the
Hariom
Gupta/complainant and Ashish Gupta and
they were not the sons of late Triloki Nath
Gupta. They had started serving in clerical
cadre and thereafter declared himself as
Director.
On
the
complaint
of
the
revisionists, the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Kanpur vide letter
dated 7.2.2020 had issued notice to them
11 All. Chandraprakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1265
while said institution should not be closed
which is based on false and fabricated
papers. When the revisionists were working
and exposing of false and fabricated
document,
then
the
Hariom
Gupta,
complainant had fabricated a forged will.
On the basis of that forged will, he had
filed an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C and with the collusion and pressure
tactics on the Investigating Officer got
registered a case under Sections 419, 420,
467, 120B IPC. The revisionists took
ground that unless and until any document
declared as forged and fabricated, how the
revisionists may be implicated in the
offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468,
120B IPC.

7. Late Ramrati Gupta too established
Sri Triloki Nath Gupta Smarak Uchchattar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya in the memory of
her late husband, Triloki Nath Gupta. She
was President of it. She had sold some
landed property in favour of the said
college. Thereafter for further extension of
the college, she had gifted her land as a
President of the College. Hariom Gupta,
the complainant and his brothers, Satish
and Ashish tried to grab that property. The
revisionists had filed application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against them and a
case at case crime No. 102 of 2023 was
registered at Police Station Akbarpur,
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506
IPC, which is still under investigation.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionists
has submitted that the revisionists have
filed a Civil Suit No. 275 of 2017 (Sri
Triloki Nath Gupta Smarak Uchchttar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya and another Vs.
Satish Kumar Gupta and others), which is
pending before the civil Judge (Senior
Division), Kanpur Dehat. The parties are
contesting in the said case. To avoid any
judicial order in the said civil suit, they had
filed this false, forged and fabricated FIR.
Late Smt. Ramrati Gupta, who had written
the will dated 17.3.2015 in favour of the
revisionist are in her full conscious mind.
The said will dated 17.3.2015 is duly
signed by her. Her signature was duly
verified by the expert and he verified that
the signature of Smt. Ramrati Gupta on the
will dated 17.3.2015 is right, correct and
genuine.

9. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the revisionists that the matter
in dispute is of purely civil nature and civil
suit is also pending between the parties and
both will dated 17.3.2015 as well as alleged
will dated 11.1.2017 are sub-judice in the
said suit no. 275 of 2017. Until the civil
court rejects the will dated 17.3.2015, it
could not be treated as incorrect, false and
fabricated, hence no offence is made
against
the
revisionists.
Hence
the
revisionists are entitled to be discharged.

10. Learned counsel for Hari Om
Gupta/the complainant/opposite party no. 2
has submitted that Smt. Ramrati Gupta,
who had no issue and thereafter, she had
decided to give assets belonging to her to
the son of her real brother Ram Prakash
Gupta. Hence Ramrati Gupta and her
husband had started showing love to the
son of his real brother Ashish Gupta, Satish
Gupta as well as Hariom Gupta. In this
backdrop, Satish Gupta was adopted by late
Ramrati
on
21.11.2001
by
way
of
registered adoption deed. Subsequently,
Ashish Gupta son of Ram Prakash Gupta,
who was pursuing study with late Ramrati,
who willingly given her parental name of
her husband Triloki Nath Gupta.

11. The opposite party no.2 relied that
late Ramrati Gupta executed a Will dated
1266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24.10.2016,
wherein
Ravindra
Kumar
Singh one of the revisionists was given
some right for moveable property, but
dishonestly Ravindra Kumar Singh, who
was servant started unnecessary benefits
and for the purposes of day to day work, he
has illegally put a signature of Ramrati
Gupta on blank papers and started misusing
the blank paper signed by Ramrati Gupta.
Hence Smt. Ramrati Gupta had cancelled
her previous will dated 24.10.2016 and
another registered will dated 11.1.2017 was
executed. 1/3rd, each and equal share given
to Hariom Gupta, Satish Kumar Gupta son
of Ram Prakash Gupta, adopted son of
Triloki Nath Gupta and Ashish Gupta.

12. The contention of learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 is appears to be
contrary to the adoption deed. When late
Ramrati Gupta had adopted Satish Gupta as
her
adopted
son,
hence
will
dated
11.1.2017
in
favour
of
the
complainant/Hariom Gupta, Ashish Kumar
Gupta and Satish Kumar Gupta raises a
preliminary question mark.

13. The contention of the learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the
revisionist- Ravindra Kumar Singh has
filed a probate application for unregistered
will dated 17.3.2015, but that probate
proceeding was not decided on merits. It
was dismissed in default on 12.9.2017 by
the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in probate
case. Hence that decided nothing. The will
dated 17.3.2015 remained as it is.

14.
The
complainant/Hariom
Gupta/opposite party no.2 has filed a copy
of plaint of Original Suit No. 275 of 2017,
which is pending before the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Kanpur Dehat. The
plaint and supporting affidavit of said civil
suit was verified on 12.10.2017, whereas
the FIR of this case has been filed on
13.10.2019. In the said civil suit, both will
dated 17.3.2015 as well as 11.1.2017 are
subjudice. Hence it is categorically clear
that the civil suit which is pending since
2017 between the parties is much prior to
lodging
of
the
present
FIR
dated
13.10.2019.

15. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 has placed reliance on the order
dated 16.8.2018 which was passed in
Original Suit No. 275 of 2017 by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Dehat,
where the application of the revisionists
(6C-2) filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
CPC has been dismissed, but it does not
amount to the finality of civil suit. A Misc.
Appeal against the said order dated
16.8.2018 was also rejected by the 7th
Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Dehat vide
order dated 20.1.2020 in Misc. Appeal No.
10
of
2018.
The
order
passed
in
continuation of application under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 that too does not amount to
the finality of said civil suit.

16.
Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionists has relied that the matter in
dispute
is
purely
civil
nature.
The
revisionists further relied on an order dated
17.9.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gorakhpur in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 843 of 2025, where the
application of the revisionists under Section
173(4) of BNSS was rejected on the ground
that the matter in dispute is of civil nature.
Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had
relied upon the law laid down by the Apex
Court in Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State
of Uttranchal; (2007) 12 SCC 1, wherein
the Apex Court held that no permission
could be granted for conversion of civil suit
into criminal case. It is amounting to
misuse of process of law and, therefore,
11 All. Chandraprakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1267
said
application
was
rejected.
The
revisionists further relied upon a General
Assembly list of the year 2016-2017 of Sri
Triloki Nath Gupta Smarak Uchchattar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti, wherein
Ashish Gupta is shown as son of late
Triloki Nath Gupta. Sri Satish Kumar
Gupta as son of late Triloki Nath Gupta and
Hariom Gupta as son of Sri Ram Prakash
Gupta, whereas the only adopted son is
Satish Kumar Gupta. Ashish Gupta and
Hariom Gupta are sons of Ram Prakash
Gupta and they are not adopted by late Smt.
Ramrati Gupta.

17.
Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionists had further relied and tried to
verify the malafide intention of opposite
party no. 2; that the opposite party no.2 had
filed the present FIR on 13.10.2019 against
Shamsher Singh and made allegation,
whereas the revisionists have filed death
certificate
of
Shamsher
Singh,
that
Shamsher Singh died on 9.3.2019 much
prior to lodging of the present FIR on
13.10.2019. It proves and verifies the
malafide intention of opposite party no.2.

18. The Supreme Court in Sanjay
Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and
another; 2022 (5) SCC 720 by Three
Judges Bench,(authored by Hon. Surya
Kant, J) held as under:-

"12. At the outset, we may note
that the High Court has dismissed the
Criminal Revision on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction under section 397 of Cr.P.C.
The High Court did not examine the issue
in
detail
to
find
out
whether
the
continuation of proceedings will amount to
abuse of process of law in this case. The
impugned order cites the decision of this
Court
in
Asian
Resurfacing
(supra)
wherein it was noted as under:

"...Thus, we declare the law to be
that order framing charge is not purely an
interlocutory order nor a final order.
Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred
irrespective of the label of a petition, be it
under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C.or
Article 227 of the Constitution. However,
the said jurisdiction is to be exercised
consistent with the legislative policy to
ensure expeditious disposal of a trial
without the same being in any manner
hampered. Thus considered, the challenge
to an order of charge should be entertained
in a rarest of rare case only to correct a
patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-
appreciate the matter."

13. It appears to us that while
limiting the scope of a criminal revision to
jurisdictional errors alone, the High Court
apparently underappreciated the Judgment
in Asian Resurfacing (supra). We say so at
least for two reasons. First, the material
facts in the abovecited case dealt with a
challenge to the charges framed under the
Prevention
of
Corruption
Act,
1988
("POCA"). The cited judgment itself
enlightens that not only is POCA a special
legislation, but also contains a specific bar
under Section 19 against routine exercise
of revisional jurisdiction. Second, This
Court in Asian Resurfacing (Supra) while
expressing concern regarding the need to
tackle rampant pendency and delays in our
criminal law system, followed the ratio laid
down in an earlier decision in Madhu
Limaye V. State of Maharashtra as can be
seen from the following extract: "27. Thus,
even though in dealing with different
situations,
seemingly
conflicting
observations may have been made while
holding that the order framing charge was
interlocutory order and was not liable to be
interfered with under Section 397(2) or
even under Section 482 CrPC, the principle
laid down in Madhu Limaye [Madhu
1268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Limaye V. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4
SCC 551: 1978 SCC (Cri) 10] still holds
the field. Order framing charge may not be
held to be purely an interlocutory order
and can in a given situation be interfered
with under Section 397(2) CrPC or 482
Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution
which is a constitutional provision but the
power of the High Court to interfere with
an order framing charge and to grant stay
is to be exercised only in a exceptional
situation."

14. In Madhu Limaye (supra),
this Court authoritatively held:

"9... Sometimes the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court has also
been resorted to for the same kind of relief
by challenging the order taking cognizance
or issuing processes or framing charge on
the grounds that the Court had no
jurisdiction to take cognizance and proceed
with the trial, that the issuance of process
was wholly illegal or void, or that no
charge could be framed as no offence was
made out on the allegations made or the
evidence adduced in Court..

10. ... Even assuming, although
we shall presently show that it is not so,
that in such a case an order of the Court
taking cognizance or issuing processes is
an interlocutory order, does it stand to
reason to say that inherent power of the
High Court cannot be exercises for
stopping the criminal proceeding as early
as possible, instead of harassing the
accused up to the end? The answer is
obvious that the bar will not operate to
prevent the abuse of the process of the
Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.
The label of the petition filed by an
aggrieved party is immaterial.

15. The correct position of law as
laid down in Madhu Limaye (supra), thus,
is that orders framing charges or refusing
discharge are neither interlocutory nor
final in nature and are therefore not
affected by the bar of Section 397 (2) of
CrPC. That apart, this Court in the
abovecited
cases
has
unequivocally
acknowledged that the High Court is
imbued
with
inherent
jurisdiction
to
prevent abuse of process or to secure ends
of justice having regard to the facts and
circumstance of individual cases. As a
caveat it may be stated that the High Court,
while exercising its aforestated jurisdiction
ought to be circumspect. The discretion
vested in the High Court is to be invoked
carefully and judiciously for effective and
timely administration of criminal justice
system. This Court, nonetheless, does not
recommend a complete hands off approach.
Albeit, there should be interference, may
be, in exceptional cases, failing which there
is likelihood of serious prejudice to the
rights of a citizen. For example, when the
contents of a complaint or the other
purported material on record is a brazen
attempt to persecute an innocent person, it
becomes imperative upon the Court to
prevent the abuse of process of law.

16. Further, it is well settled that
the trial court while considering the
discharge application is not to act as a
mere post office. The Court has to sift
through the evidence in order to find out
whether there are sufficient grounds to try
the suspect. The court has to consider the
broad probabilities, total effect of evidence
and documents produced and the basic
infirmities appearing in the case and so on.
[ Union of India V. Prafulla Kumar
Samal].Likewise, the Court has sufficient
discretion to order further investigation in
appropriate cases, if need be. It is also held
that discharge is a valuable right provided
to the accused."

19. It is held by the Supreme Court in
Urmila Devi and others Vs. Balram and
11 All. Chandraprakash Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1269
another; 2025 SCC Online 1574 that the
court proceeding ought not to be permitted
to degenerate into a weapon of harassment
or persecution as no one is permitted to
disguise the civil dispute as criminal.

20.
Section
397
of
Cr.P.C
(corresponding Section 438 of BNSS) as
well as Section 401 Cr.P.C.(corresponding
Section 442 of BNSS) read as under:-

"397. Calling for records to
exercise of powers of revision.-(1) The
High Court or any Sessions Judge may call
for and examine the record of any
proceeding before any inferior Criminal
Court situate within its or his local
jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying
itself or himself as to the correctness,
legality or propriety of any finding,
sentence or order, recorded or passed, and
as to the regularity of any proceedings of
such inferior Court, and may, when calling
for such record direct that the execution of
any sentence or order be suspended, and if
the accused is in confinement, that he be
released on bail or on his own bond
pending the examination of the record.

401.High
Court's
powers
of
revision.-(1) In the case of any proceeding
the record of which has been called for by
itself or which otherwise comes to its
knowledge, the High Court may, in its
discretion, exercise any of the powers
conferred on a court of appeal by Sections
386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of
Session by Section 307 and, when the
Judges composing the Court of revision are
equally divided in opinion, the case shall
be disposed of in the manner provided by
Section 392.

(2) No order under this section
shall be made to the prejudice of the
accused or other person unless he has had
an opportunity of being heard either
personally or by pleader in his own
defence.

(3) Nothing in this section shall
be deemed to authorize a High Court to
convert a finding of acquittal into one of
conviction.

(4) Where under this Code an
appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no
proceeding by way of revision shall be
entertained at the instance of the party who
could have appealed.

(5) Where under this Code an
appeal lies but an application for revision
has been made to the High Court by any
person and the High Court is satisfied that
such application was made under the
erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto
and that it is necessary in the interests of
justice so to do, the High Court may treat
the application for revision as a petition of
appeal
and
deal
with
the
same
accordingly."

21. The revisionists have filed a civil
suit No. 275 of 2017 (Sri Triloki Nath
Gupta Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya
Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and others), which
is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Kanpur Dehat. The parties are
contesting the said case. The will dated
17.3.2015 as well as 11.1.2017 are
subjudice in the said civil suit. The probate
application of the will dated 17.3.2015
which was dismissed in default on
12.9.2017 by the District Judge, Kanpur
Nagar, hence, it could not be treated as
proper adjudication on merits.

22. In view of the above, legality of
the will dated 17.3.2015 is remained as it
is. The original civil suit No. 275 of 2017
was filed on 12.10.2017, whereas the FIR
of this case has been lodged on 13.10.2019
on the basis of an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. The said civil suit is
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pending between the parties much prior to
lodging
of
the
present
FIR
dated
13.10.2019. The said civil suit is still
pending to be decided on merit. The order
on interim application does not amounting
to decide the lis pending between the
parties. The application under section
173(4) of BNSS filed by the revisionists
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gorakhpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 845
of 2025 was rejected on the ground that the
matter in dispute is of civil nature.

24. The opposite party no.2/complainant
has filed the FIR in question dated
13.10.2019 against Shamsher Singh and
made
several
allegations
against
him,
whereas Shamsher Singh already died on
9.3.2019 much prior to lodging of the present
FIR dated 13.10.2019.

25. In view of all the reasons, facts and
circumstances and the law laid down by the
Supreme Court (Urmila Devi) (supra), it is
categorically held that the court proceedings
ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment or persecution as no
one is permitted to disguise the civil dispute
as criminal.

26. Hence, the impugned order dated
6.1.2025, passed by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur in Case No.
121071 of 2021 (State Vs. Chandra Prakash
Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime
No. 375 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468 and 120-B IPC, Police Station
Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur, so far as it
relates to the revisionists, is hereby set aside
and the revisionists are discharged. The
impugned
order
against
accused-Sushil
Naroola would be operating and that would
be disposed of by the learned trial court in
accordance with law.

27. The criminal revision stands
allowed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1270
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR , J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 799 of 2025

Smt. Joolee & Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jigyasha Tripathi, Surendra Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ajay Kumar Chaurasia, G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the detenue is major and is
entitled to be set at liberty and left free to go
wherever she likes and stay with whomsoever
she wants?

Head Notes
The Constitution of India,1950-Article
226, The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015-94- In
the absence of a proper date of birth
certificate issued by the School or the
Board, where the victim or the detenue
has passed a graduating examination, a
transfer
certificate
or
school
leaving
certificate or an admission register entry
cannot be considered to be a proof of the
victim/detenue's age- The detenue has
clearly stated that she does not want to
go to her parents, but wishes to go and
stay with her husband, -The detenue is
apparently a major and there is absolutely
no justification in detaining her in a
protection home, as done by the Child
Welfare Committee in this case pending
investigating in the crime registered at