# Smt. Alka & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 141
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 5185 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-alka-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51598
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law -Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973
- Section 125 - Maintenance -
Revisionists (wife and two minor daughters)
challenged the order dated 13.09.2022 by
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1,
Meerut,
granting
interim
maintenance
of
Rs.3,000/- to revisionist No.1 (wife) and
Rs.2,000/- each to revisionist Nos.2 and 3
(minor daughters) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
seeking
enhancement.
Revisionists
alleged
dowry
harassment
and
abandonment
by
opposite
party
No.2
(husband),
a
pump
operator earning Rs.30,551/- monthly (net
Rs.23,528/-).
Trial
court's
order
lacked
reasoning and failed to consider husband's
income and family status. Relying on Rajnesh Vs
Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, court held that
maintenance
should
prevent
destitution,
consider husband's financial capacity, and be
awarded from the date of application, up to
25% of monthly income. Opposite party No.2's
claim of supporting a heart-patient brother
insufficient to reduce obligation. Impugned
order set aside as erroneous. Maintenance
enhanced to Rs.4,000/- for wife and Rs.3,000/-
each
for
daughters,
totaling
Rs.10,000/-
monthly, payable from date of application, with
arrears in four installments. Revision allowed.
(Paras 13-21)

Revision Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

3 All. Smt. Alka & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
141

17. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the concerned trial court for necessary
action.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 141
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5185 of 2022

Smt. Alka & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Ram Jee Saxena, Sri Raghuvansh
Chandra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey

Criminal Law -Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973
- Section 125 - Maintenance -
Revisionists (wife and two minor daughters)
challenged the order dated 13.09.2022 by
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1,
Meerut,
granting
interim
maintenance
of
Rs.3,000/- to revisionist No.1 (wife) and
Rs.2,000/- each to revisionist Nos.2 and 3
(minor daughters) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
seeking
enhancement.
Revisionists
alleged
dowry
harassment
and
abandonment
by
opposite
party
No.2
(husband),
a
pump
operator earning Rs.30,551/- monthly (net
Rs.23,528/-).
Trial
court's
order
lacked
reasoning and failed to consider husband's
income and family status. Relying on Rajnesh Vs
Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, court held that
maintenance
should
prevent
destitution,
consider husband's financial capacity, and be
awarded from the date of application, up to
25% of monthly income. Opposite party No.2's
claim of supporting a heart-patient brother
insufficient to reduce obligation. Impugned
order set aside as erroneous. Maintenance
enhanced to Rs.4,000/- for wife and Rs.3,000/-
each
for
daughters,
totaling
Rs.10,000/-
monthly, payable from date of application, with
arrears in four installments. Revision allowed.
(Paras 13-21)

Revision Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Rajnesh Vs Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 (Paras 5,
9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

2. Smt. Kuldeep Kaur Vs St. of U.P., (2012) 3
JIC 522 (All) (Para 5)

3. Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316
(Para 13)

4. Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena, (2015) 6
SCC 353 (Para 13)

5. Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh
Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 (Para 13)

6. Kamala Vs M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11
SCC 491 (Para 13)

7. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs District Judge,
Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7 (Para 14)

8. Vinny Parmvir Parmar Vs Parmvir Parmar,
(2011) 13 SCC 112 (Para 14)

9. Manish Jain Vs Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC
801 (Para 14)

10. Reema Salkan Vs Sumer Singh Salkan,
(2019) 12 SCC 303 (Para 14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,
J.)

By means of the instant criminal
revision, revisionists have assailed the
judgement and order dated 13.09.2022
passed by Additional Principal Judge,
Family Judge Court No.1, Meerut in Case
No.07 of 2022 (Smt. Alka vs. Sohanpal @
Sonu), under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. By the impugned order, the trial
Court has granted interim maintenance of
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs.3,000/- to the revisionist No.1 and of
Rs.2,000/- to the revisionist Nos.2 and 3
per month each under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The revisionists have prayed in the revision
for enhancement of maintenance allowance
granted by the trial Court in their favour.

3. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the revisionists that
before
calculating
the
quantum
of
maintenance, the trial court has not taken
into consideration the salary of the opposite
party No.2 (husband) and the status of
family. It has also been submitted that
opposite party No.2 is still neglecting to
maintain the revisionists, who are his wife
and two minor daughters. The revisionists
are not capable to maintain themselves. He
next submitted that finding of the trial court
regarding the income of the opposite party
No.2 is not based on the evidence on
record. As per the evidence on record, the
monthly salary of the opposite party
No.2 is of Rs.30551/-, therefore,
revisionists
shall
be
entitled
to
atleast 1/3rd of salary of opposite
party
No.2
as
maintenance
allowance.

4. The revisionist No.1 has filed
payslip
of
opposite
party
No.2,
which was issued on 26.09.2022 by
the
Executive
Engineer,
Vidyutkhand-III, U.P. Awas Vikas
Parishad,
Kalyanpur,
District
Kanpur. The same has been annexed
as Annexure No.1 to the revision. In
this statement of salary, the gross
income of the opposite party No.2 is
shown as Rs. 30,551/- and net
amount payable as Rs. 23,528/-.

5. Learned counsel for the
revisionists has placed reliance on the
following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court as well as this Court:-

(i)
Rajnesh
vs.
Neha
and
Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

(ii) Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and
Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another,
(2012) 3 JIC 522 (AII).

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 has opposed the prayer
of the revisionists and submitted that trial
court has passed the impugned order on
evidence on record. It has also been
submitted that trial court has not given
reasons
for
fixing
the
amount
of
maintenance allowance. It has also been
submitted that opposite party No.2 having
been appointed as pump operator in U.P.
Awas Vikas Parishad, Kalyanpur, Kanpur
under dying in harness rules and he has
liability to maintain 58 years old elder
brother, who is suffering from heart
disease, therefore, the amount of next
salary will be reduced after deducting the
amount for maintenance of his brother from
his monthly gross salary.

7. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Chandra,
learned counsel for the revisionists, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2.

8. Factual matrix of the case, in brief,
is that Smt. Alka, who is revisionist No.1 in
this revision filed an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. for herself and two
minor daughters alleging that revisionist
No.1 was married with opposite party
No.2- Sohanpal @ Sonu according to
Hindu rites and rituals on 29.04.2015 and
her parents spent Rs.10 Lakhs on her
marriage. After marriage, she started living
in her matrimonial home where her
3 All. Smt. Alka & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
143
husband (opposite party No.2) and her inlaws started harassing her for not bringing
sufficient dowry. On 15.03.2016, after her
giving birth to a girl child, namely Tavisha,
her husband and in-laws started taunting
her for the same. On 09.05.2017, her
husband (opposite party No.3) and in-laws
beaten her and also ousted from her
matrimonial home. After so many efforts
made by her father and brother, they
brought her back and dropped her to House
No.78, Shergari Meerut on 17.06.2018. Inspite of that, her husband and in-laws
continued harassing and taunting her.
Meanwhile, on 11.08.2020, she gave birth
to second girl child, namely, Lashika
Singh. After the birth of second child, the
torture and harassment of her husband and
in-law also increased. On 18.12.2021, her
husband and in-laws beaten her and tried to
evict her from matrimonial home, then,
revisionist No.1 called the police. After
arrival of the police, her husband and inlaws ran away from that place. On
20.12.2021, opposite party No.2 (husband)
left the revisionist No.1 and his daughters
at her parental house, and thereafter,
opposite party No.2 neither provided any
maintenance to the revisionists nor have
any contact with her. Revisionist No.1 is a
domestic woman and having no source of
income to maintain herself and her
daughters. Opposite party No.2 is a healthy
person. He is working as a Tube-well
Operator in U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad,
District
Muzaffarnagar
and
earning
Rs.30,000/- per month as salary. On
19.04.2021, opposite party No.2 in the
presence of his brother and father of the
revisionist No.1 entered into compromise
with the revisionists and opposite party
No.2 agreed to pay per month 50% of his
salary to his wife as well as two children as
maintenance allowance but opposite party
No.2 did not comply the aforesaid
settlement
agreement
arrived
between
them.
The
revisionist
No.1
requires
maintenance allowance of Rs.20,000/- to
maintain herself and her children.

9. Even after service of notice,
opposite party No.2 did not appear in the
trial court. The trial court considering the
notice having been sufficiently served on
24.06.2022
ordered
for
ex-parte
proceedings against opposite party No.2.
The revisionist No.1 recorded her oral
evidence and produced the aadhar card as
documentary evidence. The revisionist
No.1 also produced affidavit of compliance
on the direction by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Rajnesh (supra), in which,
she deposed that she has not been granted
any maintenance allowance at an earlier
stage and opposite party No.2 has not
provided any maintenance to her.

10. On the basis of evidence on
record, trial Court found that revisionist
No.1 is unable to maintain herself and her
two minor daughters, whereas her husbandopposite party No.2 has sufficient means
and is still neglecting to maintain them. By
the impugned order, the trial court granted
aforesaid monthly maintenance allowance
to them.

11. In the counter affidavit, opposite
party No.2 has stated that he has obtained
employment/job under dying in harness
rules and has liability to maintain her elder
brother, who is aged about 58 years and is
also suffering from heart disease. He also
stated that the revisionist No.1 is highly
qualified and running coaching at her
house.

12. The provision of Section 125
Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance of wives,
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
children and parents. The Section 125
Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

"125.Order for maintenance of
wives, children and parents.-(1) If any
person having sufficient means neglects or
refuses to maintain-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain
herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate
minor child, whether married or not,
unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate
child (not being a married daughter) who
has attained majority, where such child is,
by reason of any physical or mental
abnormality or injury unable to maintain
itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable
to maintain himself or herself,

a Magistrate of the First Class
may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal,
order such person to make a monthly
allowance for the maintenance of his wife
or such child, father or mother, at such
monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit,
and to pay the same to such person as the
Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided that the Magistrate may
order the father of a minor female child
referred to in clause (b) to make such
allowance, until she attains her majority, if
the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband
of such minor female child, if married, is
not possessed of sufficient means:

Provided
further
that
the
Magistrate may, during the pendency of the
proceeding regarding monthly allowance
for the maintenance under this sub-section,
order such person to make a monthly
allowance for the interim maintenance of
his wife or such child, father or mother,
and the expenses of such proceeding which
the Magistrate considers reasonable, and
to pay the same to such person as the
Magistrate may from time to time direct:

Provided also that an application
for the monthly allowance for the interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding
under the second proviso shall, as far as
possible, be disposed of within sixty days
from the date of the service of notice of the
application to such person.

Explanation.-For the purposes
of this Chapter-

(a) "minor" means a person who,
under the provisions of the Indian Majority
Act, 1875 (9 of 1875); is deemed not to
have attained his majority;

(b) "wife" includes a woman who
has been divorced by, or has obtained a
divorce from, her husband and has not
remarried.

(2) Any such allowance for the
maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding shall be payable
from the date of the order, or, if so ordered,
from the date of the application for
maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.

(3) If any person so ordered fails
without sufficient cause to comply with the
order, any such Magistrate may, for every
breach of the order, issue a warrant for
levying the amount due in the manner
provided for levying fines, and may
sentence such person, for the whole or any
part of each month's allowance for the
maintenance or the interim maintenance
and expenses of proceeding, as the case
may be, remaining unpaid after the
execution of the warrant, to imprisonment
for a term which may extend to one month
or until payment if sooner made:

Provided that no warrant shall be
issued for the recovery of any amount due
under this section unless application be
made to the Court to levy such amount
within a period of one year from the date
3 All. Smt. Alka & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
145
on which it became due : Provided further
that if such person offers to maintain his
wife on condition of her living with him,
and she refuses to live with him, such
Magistrate may consider any grounds of
refusal stated by her, and may make an
order under this section notwithstanding
such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just
ground for so doing.

Explanation.-If a husband has
contracted marriage with another woman
or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered
to be a just ground for his wife's refusal to
live with him.

(4) No wife shall be entitled to
receive an allowance for the maintenance
or interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding, as the case may be, from her
husband under this section if she is living
in adultery, or if, without any sufficient
reason, she refuses to live with her
husband, or if they are living separately by
mutual consent.

(5) On proof that any wife in
whose favour an order has been made
under this section is living in adultery, or
that without sufficient reason she refuses to
live with her husband, or that they are
living separately by mutual consent, the
Magistrate shall cancel the order."

13. In paragraph Nos.37, 38, 39 and
40 of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another:
(2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed as under:-

"37. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai
[Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316
: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Cri) 356] this Court held that the object
of maintenance proceedings is not to
punish a person for his past neglect, but to
prevent vagrancy and destitution of a
deserted wife by providing her food,
clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy.
Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social
justice especially enacted to protect
women and children, and falls within the
constitutional sweep of Article 15(3),
reinforced
by
Article
39
of
the
Constitution.

38. Proceedings under Section
125 CrPC are summary in nature. In
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan
Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353
: (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC
(Cri) 200] this Court held that Section 125
CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the
agony, anguish, financial suffering of a
woman who had left her matrimonial
home, so that some suitable arrangements
could be made to enable her to sustain
herself and the children. Since it is the
sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide
financial support to the wife and minor
children, the husband was required to
earn money even by physical labour, if he
is able-bodied, and could not avoid his
obligation,
except
on
any
legally
permissible ground mentioned in the
statute.

39.
The
issue
whether
presumption of marriage arises when
parties are in a live-in relationship for a
long period of time, which would give rise
to a claim under Section 125 CrPC came
up for consideration in Chanmuniya v.
Virendra
Kumar
Singh
Kushwaha
[Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh
Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 : (2011) 1
SCC (Civ) 53 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 666.
This judgment was referred to a larger
Bench.] before the Supreme Court. It was
held that where a man and a woman have
cohabited for a long period of time, in the
absence of legal necessities of a valid
marriage, such a woman would be entitled
to maintenance. A man should not be
allowed to benefit from legal loopholes, by
enjoying the advantages of a de facto
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
marriage, without undertaking the duties
and obligations of such marriage. A broad
and expansive interpretation must be
given to the term "wife", to include even
those cases where a man and woman have
been living together as husband and wife
for a reasonably long period of time. Strict
proof of marriage should not be a
precondition for grant of maintenance
under Section 125 CrPC. The Court relied
on the Malimath Committee Report on
Reforms of Criminal Justice System
published in 2003, which recommended
that evidence regarding a man and
woman living together for a reasonably
long period, should be sufficient to draw
the presumption of marriage.

40.The law presumes in favour
of marriage, and against concubinage,
when
a
man
and
woman
cohabit
continuously for a number of years.
Unlike matrimonial proceedings where
strict proof of marriage is essential, in
proceedings under Section 125 CrPC such
strict standard of proof is not necessary.
[Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019)
11 SCC 491 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 732 :
(2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 242]."

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph Nos.77, 78, 79 and 80 of
Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another (supra)
has provided for criteria for determining
quantum of maintenance, which reads as
under:-

" 77. The objective of granting
interim/permanent alimony is to ensure
that the dependent spouse is not reduced
to destitution or vagrancy on account of
the failure of the marriage, and not as a
punishment to the other spouse. There is
no straitjacket formula for fixing the
quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

78. The factors which would
weigh with the court inter alia are the
status of the parties; reasonable needs of
the wife and dependent children; whether
the
applicant
is
educated
and
professionally
qualified;
whether
the
applicant has any independent source of
income; whether the income is sufficient
to enable her to maintain the same
standard of living as she was accustomed
to in her matrimonial home; whether the
applicant was employed prior to her
marriage; whether she was working
during the subsistence of the marriage;
whether the wife was required to sacrifice
her
employment
opportunities
for
nurturing the family, child rearing, and
looking after adult members of the family;
reasonable costs of litigation for a nonworking wife. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur
Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun,
(1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir
Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13
SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290]"

79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha
Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain,
(2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ)
712] this Court held that the financial
position of the parents of the applicant
wife, would not be material while
determining the quantum of maintenance.
An order of interim maintenance is
conditional on the circumstance that the
wife or husband who makes a claim has
no independent income, sufficient for her
or his support. It is no answer to a claim
of maintenance that the wife is educated
and could support herself. The court must
take into consideration the status of the
parties and the capacity of the spouse to
pay for her or his support. Maintenance is
dependent upon factual situations; the
court
should
mould
the
claim
for
maintenance based on various factors
brought before it.
3 All. Smt. Alka & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
147

80. On the other hand, the
financial capacity of the husband, his
actual income, reasonable expenses for
his own maintenance, and dependent
family members whom he is obliged to
maintain under the law, liabilities if any,
would be required to be taken into
consideration, to arrive at the appropriate
quantum of maintenance to be paid. The
court must have due regard to the
standard of living of the husband, as well
as the spiralling inflation rates and high
costs of living. The plea of the husband
that he does not possess any source of
income ipso facto does not absolve him of
his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is
able-bodied
and
has
educational
qualifications. [Reema Salkan v. Sumer
Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018)
5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri)
339]"

15. After thoroughly discussing the
numerous judgements of the Hon'ble Apex
Court and this Court, the Apex Court in
para-109 of Rajnesh vs. Neha and
Another (supra) held that maintenance
should be provided from the date of
application not from the date of order. The
para-109 of the aforesaid judgement reads
as under:-

"
109.
The
judgments
hereinabove reveal the divergent views of
different High Courts on the date from
which maintenance must be awarded.
Even though a judicial discretion is
conferred upon the court to grant
maintenance either from the date of
application or from the date of the order
in Section 125(2) CrPC, it would be
appropriate to grant maintenance from
the date of application in all cases,
including Section 125 CrPC. In the
practical
working
of
the
provisions
relating to maintenance, we find that there
is significant delay in disposal of the
applications for interim maintenance for
years on end. It would therefore be in the
interests of justice and fair play that
maintenance is awarded from the date of
the application."

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decision of Rajnesh vs. Neha and
Another (supra) has held that the husband
is bound to provide maintenance allowance
to his wife and children which may be upto
25% of his monthly income.

17. Considering the law propounded
by the following decisions and facts and
circumstances of the case, there is
sufficient ground to allow the present
criminal revision and enhance the amount
of maintenance allowance to be paid to the
revisionist Nos.1, 2 and 3.

18. In view of the aforesaid factual
and legal aspect, I am of the view that the
order impugned dated 13.09.2022 is
erroneous and cannot survive in the eyes of
law, therefore, I set aside the impugned
order for the aforesaid reasons.

19. The application for enhancement
of
maintenance
allowance
filed
by
revisionist no.1 is allowed and it is
observed that she will be entitled for
Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance
allowance along with Rs.3000/- per month
to revisionist Nos.2 and 3 (minor daughter
of the opposite party No.2) each.

20. Thus, opposite party No.2 shall be
bound to provide maintenance allowance
@ of Rs.4000/- to his wife (revisionist
No.1) and Rs.3000/- to his minor daughters
each (revisionist Nos.2 and 3) and total
Rs.10,000/- per month shall be given to the
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revisionists from the date of application.
The arrears of maintenance allowance shall
be paid by the opposite party No.2 in four
equal amounts at the gap of four months.
The monthly interim maintenance shall be
paid regularly till 7th day of each month.

21. The present criminal revision is
allowed in terms of above mentioned
conditions.

22. The copy of the order be sent to
the trial Court concerned for necessary
compliance, forthwith.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 148
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2022
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5401 of 2022

Shamshad Ahmad ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sri S.C. Singh (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri M.J. Akhtar

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 397,
401 - Forgery and Fraud - Application for
Police
Investigation
-
Civil
and
Criminal
Proceedings - Judicial Discretion of Magistrate -
The revisionist, Shamshad Ahmad, challenged
the order dated 27.06.2022 by the Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Muzaffarnagar,
dismissing his application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. for police investigation into an alleged
forged Will deed dated 20.10.2005, purportedly
executed by his deceased father, Hazi Anwarul
Haq, in favor of the opposite party, Ansar Khan.
The revisionist alleged that the Will, notarized
by Jamiruddin (who died on 17.01.1998, as per
a death certificate), was forged to unlawfully
claim his father's share in jointly purchased
properties.
The
Magistrate
dismissed
the
application, deeming the matter civil in nature
due to a pending civil suit (No. 503 of 2019) and
suggesting the revisionist could pursue a
complaint case. Previous revisional orders had
set aside similar dismissals, directing fresh
consideration. Held: The court, relying on Prem
Das Vs St. of U.P. (Matter Under Article 227 No.
1328 of 2021) and other precedents, held that
the
Magistrate
erred
in
dismissing
the
application without adequately considering
the
prima
facie
evidence
of
forgery,
particularly the death certificate of the notary
predating the Will's execution. The court
emphasized
that
civil
and
criminal
proceedings can coexist for the same facts if
a cognizable offence is disclosed, and police
investigation was necessary due to the
complexity of the forgery allegations. The
revision was allowed, the impugned order was
set aside, and the matter was remitted to the
Magistrate
for
fresh
consideration
with
directions to decide in accordance with law.

Case Law Cited:

1. Sukhwasi Vs St. of U.P., 2007 ACC 739 (DB)

2. Prem Das Vs St. of U.P. & 5 Others, Matter
Under Article 227 No. 1328 of 2021

3. Smt. Sadhana Devi Vs St. of U.P., 2007 (1)
JIC 523 (All)

4. Ram Gopal Vs St. of U.P., 2011 (2) JIC 314
(All) (LB)

5. Amar Pal Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2002 (I) JCrC
(HC) 241

6. Vinod Natesan Vs St. of Kerala, 2019 (1) JCrC
235

7. Prof. R.K. Vijayasarthy Vs Sudha Seetharam,
2019 (1) JCrC 728

8. Rajesh Bhai Muljibhai Patel Vs St. of Guj.,
2020
(1)
U.C.
609