# Diwakar Nath Tripathi Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 733
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2213 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/diwakar-nath-tripathi-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-54638
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

Sri Ashutosh Kumar Sand (G.A.), Sri Manish
Goyal (Sr. Adv./A.A.G.), Sri Pawan Kumar Singh,
Sri Prashant Singh, Sri Saurabh Sachan

Issue for Consideration
Whether the allegations in the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. disclose any cognizable
offence and are sufficient to constitute the
alleged offences

Head Notes
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 156(3) - Application U/s 156(3)
moved
alleging
Opp.
Party
No.2
concealing facts obtained political and
lucrative
position
on
the
basis
of
misrepresentation and forged documents -
Revisionist is pretentiously aggrieved but
potentially dangerous - No force in the
contention
-
No
locus
to
move
an
application under Section 156 (3) - wheels
of criminal justice system cannot be
permitted to be clogged by frivolous
complaints - Proceedings appear to be
prima facie initiated maliciously by the
revisionist with oblique motives. Revision
rejected.

Held- The allegations of the complainant, who
is admittedly neither victim nor aggrieved with
the educational certificates of respondent no. 2
do not disclose cognizable offence, hence this
criminal revision is liable to be rejected -
Impugned
order is based
upon relevant
considerations
and
supported
by
cogent
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reasons, the same does not suffer from any
irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error,
hence no interference is required. (Para 33,
34, 35, 36, 38 & 39) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and
another, (1984) 2 SCC 500;Dr. Ravinder Nath
vs. State of H.P. and Others [1993 Supp. (2)
SCC 639];State of Rajasthan and Others v. Lata
Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252;Urmila Devi v. State of
U.P. and Another, 2011 SCC OnLine All
1796;Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of
Gujarat and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
559;Imran Pratapgadhi v. State another, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 678;Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC
168;International Advanced Research Centre
For Powder Metallurgy and New Materials
(ARCI) and others Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics
(P) Ltd., (2016) 1 SCC 348;Vimla (Dr.) Vs. Delhi
Admn, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 172;Mohammad
Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and
another,
(2009)
8
SCC
751;Manharbhai
Muljibhai Kapadia and another Vs. Shaileshbhai
Mohanbhai Patel and others, (2012) 10 SCC
517;Santhakumari and others Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu
and
another,
(2023)
15
SCC
440;Manharbhai Muljibhai Kapadia (supra) and
Balmanohar Jalan Vs. Sunil Paswan, (2014) 9
SCC 640;Jagannath Verma & others v. State of
U.P. & another A.I.R. 2014 ALLAHABAD 214
(Full Bench);Rambabu Gupta vs. State of U.P.,
2001 CrLJ 3363 Allahabad (Full Bench).;Kailash
Vijayvargiya
v.
Rajlakshmi
Chaudhuri
and
Others, (2023) 14 SCC 1;Usha Chakraborty &
another v. State of West Bengal & Another,
(2023) 15 SCC 135;Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and
another v. State of U.P. and others, (2015) 6
SCC 287;Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio
Vascular Diseases (2014) 2 SCC 62;Amritlal Vs.
Shantilal Soni and others (2022) 13 SCC 128

List of Acts

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C; No
locus; Wheels of criminal justice; Cannot be
permitted to be clogged by frivolous complaints;
Proceedings prima facie initiated maliciously;
With oblique motives
Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 04.09.2021 passed
by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in
Misc. Case No. 102/XII/ 2021 (C.N.R. No.
2750/2021)

Appearances for Parties
Counsel
for
Revisionist:
Ramesh
Chandra
Dwivedi, Abhishek Mishra, Chandrakesh Mishra,
K.K. Roy, Prabal Pratap (Mr. Daya Shanker
Mishra, learned Senior Advocate)

Counsel for Opposite Party: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar
Sand, Learned Government Advocate (Mr.
Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate/AAG) for
State Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh for O.P No. 2

Judgment/Order of the High Court

## Text

_Characters 0–39,965 of 69,950. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39965 for what follows._

7 All. Diwakar Nath Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
733

9.

In
light
of
the
aforesaid
notification, it is very much clear that a
criminal
revision
before
Divisional
Commissioner alone will lie against the
confiscation order passed by theDistrict
Magistrate in U.P. Prevention of Cow
Slaughter Act, 1955. Hence, the present
criminal writ against the impugned order
after
the
said
notification
is
not
maintainable as petitioner has equal and
efficacious
remedy
to
ventilate
his
grievances. However, we are of the view
that the above notification which was
issued on 15.10.2024 would not have come
to the notice of the petitioner. Therefore we
find it appropriate to dispose of this writ
petition with a liberty to the petitioner to
approach the proper forum for filing a
criminal revision within a month from the
date of order and if petitioner approaches
the forum as directed by this Court, the
concerned Division Commissioner will
entertain his revision without going into the
question of limitation.

10. Since we are aware that issue of
this nature frequently arises before Sessions
Judges, who are vested with the judicial
power to adjudicate such orders, it is
directed that copy of this judgment shall be
circulated amongst all the Judicial Officers
within State of U.P. through the District and
Sessions Judges concerned. Similarly, a
copy of this order shall also be sent to
Director of Judicial Training and Research
Institute.

11. Let a copy of this order be placed
before the Registrar General of this Court,
who will comply the directions given in
para 10 of this judgment.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 733
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2213 of 2025

Diwakar Nath Tripathi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, Sri Abhishek
Mishra, Sri Chandrakesh Mishra, Sri K.K. Roy, Sri
Prabal Pratap, Sri Daya Shanker Mishra (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Ashutosh Kumar Sand (G.A.), Sri Manish
Goyal (Sr. Adv./A.A.G.), Sri Pawan Kumar Singh,
Sri Prashant Singh, Sri Saurabh Sachan

Issue for Consideration
Whether the allegations in the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. disclose any cognizable
offence and are sufficient to constitute the
alleged offences

Head Notes
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 156(3) - Application U/s 156(3)
moved
alleging
Opp.
Party
No.2
concealing facts obtained political and
lucrative
position
on
the
basis
of
misrepresentation and forged documents -
Revisionist is pretentiously aggrieved but
potentially dangerous - No force in the
contention
-
No
locus
to
move
an
application under Section 156 (3) - wheels
of criminal justice system cannot be
permitted to be clogged by frivolous
complaints - Proceedings appear to be
prima facie initiated maliciously by the
revisionist with oblique motives. Revision
rejected.

Held- The allegations of the complainant, who
is admittedly neither victim nor aggrieved with
the educational certificates of respondent no. 2
do not disclose cognizable offence, hence this
criminal revision is liable to be rejected -
Impugned
order is based
upon relevant
considerations
and
supported
by
cogent
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reasons, the same does not suffer from any
irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error,
hence no interference is required. (Para 33,
34, 35, 36, 38 & 39) (E-15)

Case Law Cited
A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and
another, (1984) 2 SCC 500;Dr. Ravinder Nath
vs. State of H.P. and Others [1993 Supp. (2)
SCC 639];State of Rajasthan and Others v. Lata
Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252;Urmila Devi v. State of
U.P. and Another, 2011 SCC OnLine All
1796;Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of
Gujarat and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
559;Imran Pratapgadhi v. State another, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 678;Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC
168;International Advanced Research Centre
For Powder Metallurgy and New Materials
(ARCI) and others Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics
(P) Ltd., (2016) 1 SCC 348;Vimla (Dr.) Vs. Delhi
Admn, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 172;Mohammad
Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and
another,
(2009)
8
SCC
751;Manharbhai
Muljibhai Kapadia and another Vs. Shaileshbhai
Mohanbhai Patel and others, (2012) 10 SCC
517;Santhakumari and others Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu
and
another,
(2023)
15
SCC
440;Manharbhai Muljibhai Kapadia (supra) and
Balmanohar Jalan Vs. Sunil Paswan, (2014) 9
SCC 640;Jagannath Verma & others v. State of
U.P. & another A.I.R. 2014 ALLAHABAD 214
(Full Bench);Rambabu Gupta vs. State of U.P.,
2001 CrLJ 3363 Allahabad (Full Bench).;Kailash
Vijayvargiya
v.
Rajlakshmi
Chaudhuri
and
Others, (2023) 14 SCC 1;Usha Chakraborty &
another v. State of West Bengal & Another,
(2023) 15 SCC 135;Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and
another v. State of U.P. and others, (2015) 6
SCC 287;Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio
Vascular Diseases (2014) 2 SCC 62;Amritlal Vs.
Shantilal Soni and others (2022) 13 SCC 128

List of Acts

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C; No
locus; Wheels of criminal justice; Cannot be
permitted to be clogged by frivolous complaints;
Proceedings prima facie initiated maliciously;
With oblique motives
Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 04.09.2021 passed
by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in
Misc. Case No. 102/XII/ 2021 (C.N.R. No.
2750/2021)

Appearances for Parties
Counsel
for
Revisionist:
Ramesh
Chandra
Dwivedi, Abhishek Mishra, Chandrakesh Mishra,
K.K. Roy, Prabal Pratap (Mr. Daya Shanker
Mishra, learned Senior Advocate)

Counsel for Opposite Party: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar
Sand, Learned Government Advocate (Mr.
Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate/AAG) for
State Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh for O.P No. 2

Judgment/Order of the High Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

Index

Contents Page Nos.

 Factual
matrix
of
the
case...........................................0309

 Submissions on behalf of Revisionist
............................09-13

 Submissions on behalf of State
....................................13-20

Submissions on behalf of Respondent
No. 2 ............... 21-26

 Discussion about object of Section
156(3) Cr.P.C...... ...26-31

Analysis..........................................
.....................31-39

Conclusion.......................................
................... .39-40

ORDER

1- This Criminal Revision under
Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
7 All. Diwakar Nath Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
735
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the revisionist
with a prayer to set aside the judgment and
order dated 04.09.2021 passed by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in
Misc. Case No. 102/XII/2021 (C.N.R. No.
2750/2021),
whereby
the
learned
Magistrate rejected the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C dated 20.07.2021
filed by the revisionist seeking direction for
registration of First Information Report
against respondent no. 2 and to investigate
the same.

2- Heard Mr. Daya Shankar Mishra,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel
for the revisionist, Mr. Manish Goyal,
learned
Senior
Counsel/
Additional
Advocate
General,
assisted
by
Mr.
Ashutosh
Kumar
Sand,
learned
Government Advocate for the State of U.P.
and Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2.

Factual matrix of the case

3- The facts that formed the bedrock
of the present criminal revision are that the
revisionist-Diwakar Nath Tripathi, has
moved an application dated 20.07.2021
under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure in the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.
17,
Allahabad with the allegations inter alia
that:-

3.1- Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya by
concealing facts obtained political and
lucrative
position
on
the
basis
of
misrepresentation and forged documents.
He, while contesting the Assembly Election
of 2007 from Allahabad West Constituency,
has disclosed that he has passed Prathma in
the year 1986, Madhyama in the year 1988
and Uttama in the year 1998 from Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. In the year
2012, in the column of highest educational
qualification, while Shri Keshav Prasad
Maurya was contesting the Assembly
Election from Sirathu Vidhan Sabha
Constituency (Kaushambi) had disclosed
that he passed B.A. in the year 1997 from
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan,
Allahabad.
Similarly, false affidavit has been filed in
the year 2014 Lok Sabha Election,
Phoolpur
Constituency
and
Vidhan
Parishad Election.

3.2- The application further recounts
that Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya has been
allotted a petrol pump from Indian Oil
Corporation Limited on the basis of forged
educational documents. The said petrol
pump
is
being
operated
in
district
Kaushambi in the name of Kamdhenu
Filling Station.

3.3- It is also mentioned in the
application that so far as the educational
qualification is concerned, certificates of
Prathma, Madhyma, Uttama Sahitya Ratna
issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan are not
considered as equivalent to High School,
Intermediate and Bachelor (B.A.) degree
respectively by Uttar Pradesh Government,
UGC and NECT. Under the Right to
Information Act, the Principal Secretary,
Secondary
Education
has
provided
information on 01.08.2017 that Prathama,
Madhyama
(Visharad)
examination
conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
Allahabad was neither recognized in the
past nor is recognized at present as
equivalent
to
the
High
School
and
Intermediate examination of the Board of
Secondary Education, U.P.

3.4- Shri Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya
using the said certificate of Prathma of
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad has
obtained the Petrol Pump.

3.5- Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya has
submitted affidavits in different elections to
the Election Commission, in which the
educational qualification of the same class
has been shown in different years, whereas
the qualifying year/session of the same
educational qualification is the same and
not different. In this manner, a malicious
attempt was made to obtain a public post
by concealing facts in a wrong manner
through fraudulent conduct and forged
documents and he was successful too.

3.6- The documents made available to
the
revisionist
under
the
Right
to
Information Act in respect of educational
qualification of Keshav Prasad Maurya
from the Indian Oil as well as from the
Election Commission, in which the writing
and signature of Keshav Prasad Maurya
were found different. When the revisionist
went to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan along
with the aforesaid documents and wanted
to get second copy of Roll No. 3238
Samvat 2053 (1996) of Uttar Madhyma,
second part (Sahitya Ratna), he was told by
the official concerned that in Roll No. 3238
Samvat 2053 (1996), the name of Manju
Singh, daughter of Lal Singh Chauhan is
recorded, which proved that the affidavit
and the educational documents are forged
and fabricated.

3.7- In the booklet issued by the
Indian Oil, the qualification for allotment
of petrol pump has been clearly mentioned
as High School, but Shri Keshav Prasad
Maurya by using his political influence on
the basis of Prathma degree has got the
petrol pump whereas he does not fulfil the
conditions and qualifications for the
allotment of the petrol pump.

3.8- It is further mentioned in the
application
that
Shri
Keshav
Prasad
Maurya on the basis of forged and
fabricated
documents
are
using
and
enjoying the public property which is very
dangerous to the society and the country.
The revisionist is very much hurt from the
aforesaid act of shri Keshav Prasad Maurya
and, therefore, prayed that strict penal
action is required be taken against him.

3.9-
For
registration
of
first
information report, the applicant sent an
application on 19.07.2021 by registered
post to the In-charge Inspector, Cantt.,
Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj,
Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow,
Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. Lucknow,
Governor of U.P. Principal Secretary
(Home) Ministry of Home, Government of
India, New Delhi, but no action has been
taken.

3.10-Being aggrieved by the inaction
of the district administration, the revisionist
has filed the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of F.I.R.
against respondent no. 2 and investigation
of the case.

4- The learned Magistrate vide order
dated 11.08.2021 directed the concerned
Station House Officer to conduct a
preliminary enquiry and submit his report.

5- Pursuant to the aforesaid order
dated 11.8.2021, the police has submitted
the
a
preliminary
enquiry
report
31.08.2021, which runs as under:

"The applicant has alleged that
Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya has used the
forged document before the Election
Commission of India, for which the
applicant should have made application for
7 All. Diwakar Nath Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
737
appropriate action before the Election
Commission of India, who should have
taken action if the record found forged. The
applicant has alleged that opposite party
has used the forged documents in the
Indian Oil Corporation, for which the
applicant should have made application
before the Indian Oil Corporation so that
action may be taken in case the documents
found forged. The applicant has not
produced any documents from Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan to prove that the
documents used by opposite party were
forged and fabricated. The police report
further mentions that the applicant has
alleged that opposite party while residing
in Alkapuri Colony has committed the said
forgery, but it has not been mentioned that
as to when and from whom he has got the
said information. No documentary proof
has been brought on record by the
applicant in support of his application. "

6- Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Allahabad after going through
the record of the case as well as
considering the report dated 31.08.2021 of
the police, rejected the said application of
the applicant vide order dated 04.09.2021.

7- Being aggrieved against the order
dated 04.09.2021 rejecting his application
under
Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C.,
the
revisionist approached this Court by filing
this Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 576
of 2023. Since, this revision was filed with
delay of 318 days, a Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 01.02.2024
dismissed the revision on the ground of
delay in filing the revision.

8- Dissatisfied with the dismissal of
his revision on the ground of delay, the
revisionist rushed to Hon'ble Supreme
Court by filing Petition for Special Leave
to Appeal (Crl) No. 6246 of 2024. Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 06.01.2025
set aside the order of this Court dated
01.02.2024 and directed this Court to
decide the revision on merits. The order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:

"The petitioner has challenged
the order dated 01st February, 2024 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad
in
Criminal
Miscellaneous
Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of
2023 in Criminal Revision Defective No.
576 of 2023. Since the High Court has only
dismissed the revision on delay, which is
hardly a month's delay and there is cogent
reason assigned by the petitioner that he
was for a long period suffering from
Dengue, the revision filed by the petitioner
should have been heard and decided on
merits.

Therefore, without going into the
merits of the matter, we set aside the order
of the High Court and dispose of this
Special Leave Petition with a request to the
High Court to decide the revision on
merits.

Pending
applications
are
disposed of. "

9- Pursuant to above order of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, on 24.04.2025, the
delay of 318 days in filing the instant
criminal revision was condoned by this
Court and office was directed to allot
regular number to this criminal revision.

10- Thereafter on 06.05.2025 and
17.05.2025 following orders were passed
by this Court.

(i) Order dated 06.05.2025

During the course of argument, it
is pointed out by Shri A.K. Sand, learned
Government Advocate that the revisionist
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had already preferred an application Under
Section 482 No. 27198 of 2021, which has
been
dismissed
vide
order
dated
24.11.2022.

On the joint request made by the
learned counsel for the parties, let the case
be listed on 17.05.2025 along with the
record of Application U/s 482 No. 27198 of
2021.

(ii) Order dated 17.05.2025

During the course of argument,
Mr. Manish Goyal, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State
submits that revisionist has not come with
clean hands before this Court because he
has filed an undated application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and that too without its
enclosures. He also pointed out that even incomplete
order-sheet has been filed by the revisionist.

On putting query in this regard, learned
counsel for the revisionist is speechless and could not
give satisfactory reply. He prays for summoning of
the original record.

In view of the above, let the original
record of C.N.R. No. 2750/2021 (Misc. Case No.
102/XII/2021 - Diwakar Nath Tripathi Vs. Keshav
Prasad Maurya), be summoned in a sealed envelop
from the Court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 17, Prayagraj by the next
date.

Office shall communicate this order to
the District Judge, Prayagraj within 48 hours, who
shall ensure compliance of this order.

On the joint request of learned counsel
for the parties, let this matter be listed on 23.05.2025.

11- After receipt of original record,
matter has been heard at length.

Submissions on behalf of the revisionist

12- Mr. Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Senior
Counsel, appearing for the revisionist, assailing the
impugned order dated 04.09.2021, strenuously
argued that-

12.1- Since Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya
(respondent no. 2) who is sitting Deputy Chief
Minster of State of U.P., by concealing facts obtained
political position on the basis of misrepresentation
and furnishing forged documents with affidavit
before the Election Commission in the year 2007,
2012 and 2014 and Indian Oil Corporation, which is
a cognizable offence, therefore revisionist who is
social worker and RTI activist is personally very
hurt, hence he moved an application under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 20.07.2021 seeking direction to
lodge F.I.R. against respondent no. 2 but the same
has been illegally rejected by the learned Magistrate
vide impugned order dated 04.09.2021.

12.2- On the issue of locus-standi of the
revisionist, Mr. Mishra relying upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.R. Antulay
v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another, (1984) 2
SCC 500, it is argued that though the revisionist has
not been personally deceived by respondent no. 2,
but he being citizen of this country is
personally very hurt on furnishing forged
documents with affidavit by respondent no.
2 before the Election Commission and
Indian Oil Corporation, hence in the
interest of society, he has equal locus-standi
to set the criminal law in motion against
respondent no. 2 through an application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated
20.07.2021.

12.3- Mr. Mishra elaborating his
argument further submits that respondent
no. 2, while contesting the Assembly
Election of 2007 from Allahabad West
Constituency has disclosed that he has
passed 'Prathma' in the year 1986,
'Madhyama' in the year 1988 and 'Uttama'
in the year 1998 from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan, Allahabad, whereas certificates
of Prathma, Madhyma and Uttama Sahitya
Ratna issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
are neither recognized nor considered as
equivalent to High School, Intermediate
7 All. Diwakar Nath Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
739
and Bachelor (B.A.) degree respectively by
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
as
per
information provided by the Principal
Secretary,
Secondary
Education
on
01.08.2017 under the Right to Information
Act. In this regard reliance has also been
placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan and Others v. Lata Arun,
(2002) 6 SCC 252, wherein the judgment in
the case of Dr. Ravinder Nath vs. State of
H.P. and Others [1993 Supp. (2) SCC 639]
has been referred in which it has been
observed that diploma/degree awarded by
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad were
recognized for the period from 1931 to
1967 only. Reliance has also been placed
upon the Division Bench judgments of this
Court in the case of Urmila Devi v. State
of U.P. and Another, 2011 SCC OnLine
All 1796, wherein it has been held inter-alia
that Prathama and Madhyama (Visharad)
(Examination) conducted by the Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan are not equivalent to the
High School and Intermediate Examination
conducted by the Board of High School and
Intermediation Education of U.P.

12.4- It next submitted that in the year
2012, in the column of highest educational
qualification, while respondent no. 2 was
contesting the Assembly Election from
Sirathu
Vidhan
Sabha
Constituency
(Kaushambi), has disclosed that he has
passed B.A. in the year 1997 from Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan,
Allahabad
and
similarly, false affidavit has been filed in
the year 2014 Lok Sabha Election,
Phoolpur
Constituency
and
Vidhan
Parishad election. It is further submitted
that in the documents which have been
made available to the revisionist under the
Right to Information Act in respect of
educational qualification of Shri Keshav
Prasad Maurya from the Indian Oil as well
as from the Election Commission, his
writing and signatures were found different.

12.5- When revisionist tried to get
second copy of Roll No. 3238 Samvat 2053
(1996) of Uttar Madhyma, second part
(Sahitya Ratna), he was told by the official
concerned of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,
Allahabad that in Roll No. 3238, Samvat
2053 (1996), the name of Manju Singh,
daughter of Lal Singh Chauhan is recorded.

12.6- Much emphasis has been given
by contending that respondent no. 2 even
without fulfilling the conditions and
eligibility criteria has also obtained a petrol
pump in district Kaushambi from Indian
Oil Corporation Limited using the forged
educational certificate of 'Prathma 1986' of
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which
is not recognised as equivalent to High
School.

12.7- Advancing his submission on the
object of calling police report, it is
submitted that purpose of calling police
report on the application under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. is only to know whether any
F.I.R. has already been register or not. In
the present case police has submitted detail
report dated 31.08.2021, which is against
the intent of the law.

12.8- It is also argued that respondent
no. 2 being prospective accused has no
locus-standi to be heard at this stage in the
present criminal revision, hence at this
stage he should not be given an opportunity
of hearing in the matter which is against the
order of rejection of application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist.

12.9- On the strength of aforesaid
submissions, lastly it is submitted that the
allegations made in the application under
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. disclose the
commission
of
cognizable
offence,
therefore impugned order dated 04.09.2021
is liable to be set-aside and considering the
nature of allegations proper investigation
by the police is required after registration
of F.I.R. against respondent no. 2. In
support of above submissions, reliance has
been placed upon the judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of
Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State
of Gujarat and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 559 and Imran Pratapgadhi v. State
another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678. In
both the above judgments, the law laid
down in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs.
Government of Uttar Pradesh and others
(2014) 2 SCC 1 on Section 154 of the Code
has been discussed and considered. The
relevant paragraph 120 of the said decision
containing
conclusions/directions
reads
thus :

"120. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we hold:

120.1. The registration of FIR is
mandatory under Section 154 of the Code,
if the information discloses commission of
a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

120.2. If the information received
does not disclose a cognizable offence but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted only
to ascertain whether cognizable offence is
disclosed or not.

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, the
FIR must be registered. In cases where
preliminary inquiry ends in closing the
complaint, a copy of the entry of such
closure must be supplied to the first
informant forthwith and not later than one
week. It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding
further." [Emphasis supplied]"

Submissions on behalf of State

13- Per contra Mr Manish Goyal,
learned Additional Advocate General for
the state of U.P./respondent no.1, refuting
the aforesaid argument of learned counsel
for the revisionist submits that:-

13.1 -Under the facts of the case, the
application filed by the revisionist under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is not maintainable.

13.2-
The
Revisionist
in
his
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
dated
20.07.2021
has
alleged
that
respondent no. 2 submitted documents with
fraudulent
and
deceitful
intent
by
misrepresenting
his
educational
qualifications in affidavits filed during
Legislative Assembly elections held in
2007, 2012, and Lok Sabha Election held in
2014,
whereas
the
contents
of
the
application suggests that the discrepancies
in
the
educational
qualification's
declaration may stem from errors or
misunderstandings, rather than deliberate
falsification. In this regard reliance is
placed upon Section 25 of IPC, which
defines the term "Fraudulently'' which
means "a person is said to do a thing
fraudulently if he does that thing with
intent to defraud but not otherwise." Hence
the said application fails to set out the
ingredients of the aforesaid offences, as the
common ingredient of 'intent' stands
missing from the aforesaid application.

13.3- Though no specific section of
I.P.C. for the alleged offence is mentioned
in the application, but allegations made in
the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. pertain to offences such as cheating,
7 All. Diwakar Nath Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
741
forgery, and fraud, thereby invoking the
provisions of Sections 420, 463, 464, and
471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
whereas from the contents of the said
application, basic ingredient of 'intent' and
other required ingredients to constitute the
aforesaid offences against respondent no. 2
are lacking. As such the application fails on
substantive and procedural grounds also.

13.4- The allegations made in the
application do not disclose the commission
of any electoral offence or cognizable
offence, as no offence is made out upon a
plain reading of the application under 156
(3) Cr.P.C.

13.5-
In
support
of
the
above
submissions, reliance has been placed upon
the following judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court:-

(i)-Hridaya
Ranjan
Prasad
Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC
168. In this case Hon'ble Apex Court
interpreted Sections 415 and 420 of IPC to
hold that fraudulent or dishonest intention
is a precondition to constitute the offence
of cheating. The relevant extract from the
judgment reads thus:

"14. On a reading of the section
it is manifest that in the definition there are
set forth two separate classes of acts which
the person deceived may be induced to do.
In the first place he may be induced
fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any
property to any person. The second class of
acts set forth in the section is the doing or
omitting to do anything which the person
deceived would not do or omit to do if he
were not so deceived. In the first class of
cases the inducing must be fraudulent or
dishonest. In the second class of acts, the
inducing must be intentional but not
fraudulent or dishonest."

(ii)-International
Advanced
Research Centre For Powder Metallurgy
and New Materials (ARCI) and others
Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd.,
(2016) 1 SCC 348. In this case Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that in order to attract
Section 420 I.P.C., there is need to establish
dishonest intention. The relevant portion
thereof is quoted herein below:-

15. The essential ingredients to
attract Section 420 IPC are : (i) cheating;
(ii)
dishonest
inducement
to
deliver
property or to make, alter or destroy any
valuable security or anything which is
sealed or signed or is capable of being
converted into a valuable security; and (iii)
mens rea of the accused at the time of
making the inducement. The making of a
false representation is one of the essential
ingredients to constitute the offence of
cheating under Section 420 IPC. In order
to bring a case for the offence of cheating,
it is not merely sufficient to prove that a
false representation had been made, but, it
is further necessary to prove that the
representation was false to the knowledge
of the accused and was made in order to
deceive the complainant.

(iii)-Vimla
(Dr.)
Vs.
Delhi
Admn, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 172,
wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the
law about the offence under Section 463
and 464 I.P.C.The relevant portion thereof
is quoted herein below:-

"5. Before we consider the
decisions cited at the Bar it would be
convenient
to
look
at
the
relevant
provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 463 : Whoever makes any
false document or part of a document with
intent to cause damage or injury, to the
public or to any person, or to support any
claim or title, or to cause any person to
part with property or to enter into any
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
express or implied contract, or with intent
to commit fraud or that fraud may be
committed, commits forgery.

Section 464 : A person is said to
make a false document- First-- Which
dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs,
seals or executes a document or part of a
document, or makes any mark denoting the
execution of a document, with the intention
of causing it to be believed that such
document/or part of a document was made,
signed, sealed or executed by or by the
authority of a person by whom or by whose
authority he knows that it was not made,
signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at
which he knows that it was not made,
signed, scaled or executed; or

"* * *"

The
definition
of
"false
document" is a part of the definition of
"forgery". Both must be read together. If so
read, the ingredients of the offence of
forgery relevant to the present enquiry are
as follows, (1) fraudulently signing a
document or a part of a document with an
intention of causing it to be believed that
such document or part of a document was
signed by another or under his authority;
(2) making of such a document with an
intention to commit fraud or that fraud may
be committed. In the two definitions, both
mens rea described in s.464 i. e.,
"fradulently" and the intention to commit
fraud in s. 463 have the same meaning.
This redundancy has perhaps become
necessary as the element of fraud is not the
ingredient of other intentions mentioned in
s. 463. The idea of deceit is a necessary
ingredient of fraud, but it does not exhaust
it; an additional element is implicit in the
expression. The scope of that something
more is the subject of may decisions. We
shall consider that question at a later stage
in the light of the decisions bearing on the
subject. The second thing to be noticed is
that in s. 464 two adverbs, "dishonestly"
and "fraudulently" are used alternatively
indicating thereby that one excludes the
other. That means they are not tautological
and must be given different meanings.
Section 24 of the Penal Code defines
"dishonestly" thus :

"Whoever does anything with the
intention of causing wrongful gain to one
person or wrongful loss to another person,
is said to do that thing dishonestly".

"Fraudulently" is defined in s. 25
thus:

" A person is said to do a thing
fraudulently if he does that thing with intent
to defraud but not otherwise".

The word "defraud" includes an
element of deceit. Deceit is not an
ingredient of the definition of the word
"dishonestly" while it is an important
ingredient of the definition of the word
"fraudulently". The former involves a
pecuniary or economic gain or loss while
the latter by construction excludes that
element. Further) the juxtaposition of the
two
expressions
"'dishonestly"
and
"fraudulently" used in the various sections
of the Code indicates their close affinity
and therefore the definition of one may give
colour to the other. To illustrate, in the
definition of "dishonestly", wrongful gain
or wrongful loss is the necessary enough.
So too, if the expression "fraudulently' were
to be held to involve the element of injury
to the person or persons deceived, it would
be reasonable to assume that the injury
should be something other than pecuniary
or economic loss. Though almost always an
advantage to one causes loss to another
and vice versa, it need not necessarily be
so. Should we hold that the concept of
fraud" would include not only deceit but
also some injury to the person deceived, it
would be appropriate to hold by analogy
drawn from the definition of "dishonestly"
7 All. Diwakar Nath Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
743
that
to
satisfy
the
definition
of
"'fraudulently" it would be enough if there
was a non- economic advantage to the
deceiver or a non-economic loss to the
deceived. Both need not co-exist.

(iv)-Mohammad
Ibrahim
and
others Vs. State of Bihar and another,
(2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein Hon'ble Apex
Court has elaborately discussed and laid
down the ingredients of offence under
Section 463, 464, 467 and 471 IPC
mentioning inter-alia that forgery as
defined under Section 463 I.P.C. in turn
dependents upon creation of a 'false
document' as defined under Section in
Section 464 I.P.C. A person is said to have
made a "false document", if (i) he made or
executed a document claiming to be
someone else or authorised by someone
else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a
document; or (iii) he obtained a document
by practising deception, or from a person
not in control of his senses.

If there is no false document,
offences under Section 467 and 471 I.P.C.
are also not made out.

13.6- Based on the averments in
the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., maximum the provisions of Section
125A of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 is attracted, concerning the
alleged filing of a false affidavit before
Election Commission.

13.7- Referring Section 125A of
the Representation of People Act, 1951
much
emphasis
has
been
given
by
contending that for the alleged offences
pertain to misrepresentation and false
affidavits submitted by respondent no. 2
before the Election Commission in the year
2007, 2012 and 2014, the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against respondent
no. 2 was filed in July 2021 after a long gap
of approximately 13, 9 and 7 years
respectively, hence the relief sought by
means of application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. is also hit by Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
because
Section
125A
prescribes
imprisonment up to six months (less than
one year), therefore applicable limitation
period under Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C.
would be one year.

13.8- It is also vehemently argued
that it is trite law, for an offence of cheating
and forgery legal doctrine requires an
actual deceived party but in the present
case, no victim exists, and the revisionist
not being the deceived party lacks locus
standing to file either application under
Section 156(3) or the instant criminal
revision.

13.9-
The
complainant/revisionist, being a third party,
has not demonstrated any direct, personal,
or specific injury sustained as a result of
the
alleged
educational
qualification
discrepancies in the affidavit of respondent
no. 2.

13.10- It is also pointed out that
neither the Election Commission nor rival
candidate or the Indian Oil Corporation is a
party in the instant Criminal Revision
before this Hon'ble Court. The Revisionist
cannot
register
a
private
complaint
concerning offences of the nature described
above, as this responsibility falls within the
purview of the aggrieved parties who have
allegedly been mislead by respondent No.
2.

13.11- Regarding allegations to
get dealership by respondent no. 2 from
Indian
Oil
Corporation
showing
qualifications from Hindi Sahitya Samelan,
Allahabad as equivalent to high school is
concerned, it is submitted that the mere
difference
between
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan qualifications and high school
equivalency
demonstrates
a
potential
interpretative
error
or
administrative
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inconsistency rather than a deliberate fraud
on the part of respondent no. 2.

13.12- The question whether
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan certifications are
equivalent to high school qualifications
represents an administrative or regulatory
dispute about credential interpretation that
may be resolved by educational authorities,
not through criminal allegations of fraud.

13.13- The revisionist fails to
establish
that
the
respondent
no. 2
knowingly
mis-characterised
his
qualifications, as the differences appeared
in public documents filed with various
authorities, suggest open interpretation
rather than concealment or deception.

13.14- Furthermore, the grant of
dealership was carried out in accordance
with the modalities prescribed by the
Indian Oil Corporation. Consequently, no
criminal liability for fraud or forgery is
made out and no cognizable offence is
disclosed.

13.15- Lastly, it is submitted that
in view of what has been argued as noted
herein above, the instant Criminal Revision
lacks of merits and is liable to be
dismissed.

Submissions
on
behalf
of
the
respondent no.2

14- Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, learned
advocate appearing for the respondent no. 2
adopted the argument raised on behalf of
the State. However in addition he submits
that:-

14.1- The respondent no.2 being a
prospective accused has right to be heard in
view of the provisions of Section 401 (2)
Cr.P.C. In this regard he placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Manharbhai
Muljibhai Kapadia and another Vs.
Shaileshbhai
Mohanbhai
Patel
and
others, (2012) 10 SCC 517, wherein in
paragraph 48, in the context of a revision
against an order dismissing a complaint
under Section 203 of the Code, the
provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 401
of the Code were interpreted as under:

"48. ........ by virtue of Section
401(2) of the Code, the suspects get right of
hearing before revisional court although
such order was passed without their
participation. The right given to "accused"
or "the other person" under Section 401(2)
of being heard before the revisional court
to defend an order which operates in his
favour should not be confused with the
proceedings before a Magistrate under
Sections 200, 202, 203 and 204. In the
revision petition before the High Court or
the Sessions Judge at the instance of
complainant challenging the order of
dismissal of complaint, one of the things
that could happen is reversal of the order of
the Magistrate and revival of the complaint.
It is in this view of the matter that the
accused or other person cannot be
deprived of hearing on the face of express
provision contained in Section 401(2) of the
Code. The stage is not important whether it
is pre-process stage or post process stage."
(emphasis supplied)