# Tulsi Ram Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 955
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4133 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh - I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tulsi-ram-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-51875
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 245, 397 &
401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
419,
420,
467,
468
&
471
-
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 9 - Revisionist challenged order dated
02.08.2022 discharging accused under Section
245 Cr.P.C. in a complaint case alleging forgery
of a will dated 15.01.1995. Court held: (1) Trial
court's discharge of accused (opposite party
nos. 2 and 3, marginal witness and writer of the
will) was justified, as complainant's evidence
under Section 244 Cr.P.C. failed to establish a
prima facie case under Sections 419, 420, 467,
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
468, 471 I.P.C. (Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh
Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460). (2) The disputed
will, upheld by consolidation authorities and not
declared invalid by a civil court, could not form
the basis for criminal proceedings for forgery
until its validity was adjudicated by a competent
civil court. (3) Consolidation court's order,
remitted by High Court for fresh consideration,
upheld the will's validity, and complainant's oral
evidence (himself and one witness) did not raise
doubts
about
the
will's
authenticity.
(4)
Revisional court's jurisdiction under Sections
397/401 Cr.P.C. is limited to examining legality,
propriety, or correctness of the trial court's
order, not re-evaluating evidence; no illegality,
irregularity, or jurisdictional error was found in
the discharge order. Impugned order upheld;
revision dismissed. (Paras 9-15)

Criminal Revision Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Tulsi Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
955
Rs.12,000/- to 14,000/- per month from his
wages. Apart from his wife, two daughters
who are aged about 12 years and 10 years
presently
are
also
to
be
provided
maintenance, therefore, opposite party No.2
shall provide 1/3rd of his monthly income
as maintenance to his wife and two
daughters. Hence, it is justified from the
evidence on record that the opposite party
No.2 be directed to provide Rs.2000/- per
month to his wife (revisionist No.1) and
Rs.1,000/- per month each to his daughters
(revisionist Nos.2 an 3), total Rs.4000/- per
month as maintenance allowance from the
date of filing of application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. as has been mandated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra).

21. In view of the aforesaid factual
and legal aspect, I am of the view that the
order impugned dated 12.07.2022 is
erroneous and cannot survive in the eyes of
law, therefore, I set-aside the impugned
order for the aforesaid reasons.

22. It is provided that revisionist No.1
will be entitled for Rs.2,000/- per month as
maintenance allowance till her remarriage
along with Rs.1000/- per month to
revisionist Nos.2 and 3 (minor daughter of
the opposite party No.2) each till they
attain the age of majority.

23. Thus, opposite party No.2 shall be
bound to provide maintenance allowance
@ of Rs.2000/- per month to his wife
(revisionist No.1) until her remarriage and
Rs.1000/-each for his minor daughters
(revisionist Nos.2 and 3) till they attain the
age of majority, total Rs.4,000/- per month
shall be given to the 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. The amount of
maintenance allowance already paid shall
be adjusted against this amount.

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

25. The copy of the order be sent to
the trial Court concerned forthwith for
necessary compliance.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 955
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH - I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4133 of 2022

Tulsi Ram ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 245, 397 &
401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
419,
420,
467,
468
&
471
-
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 9 - Revisionist challenged order dated
02.08.2022 discharging accused under Section
245 Cr.P.C. in a complaint case alleging forgery
of a will dated 15.01.1995. Court held: (1) Trial
court's discharge of accused (opposite party
nos. 2 and 3, marginal witness and writer of the
will) was justified, as complainant's evidence
under Section 244 Cr.P.C. failed to establish a
prima facie case under Sections 419, 420, 467,
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
468, 471 I.P.C. (Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh
Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460). (2) The disputed
will, upheld by consolidation authorities and not
declared invalid by a civil court, could not form
the basis for criminal proceedings for forgery
until its validity was adjudicated by a competent
civil court. (3) Consolidation court's order,
remitted by High Court for fresh consideration,
upheld the will's validity, and complainant's oral
evidence (himself and one witness) did not raise
doubts
about
the
will's
authenticity.
(4)
Revisional court's jurisdiction under Sections
397/401 Cr.P.C. is limited to examining legality,
propriety, or correctness of the trial court's
order, not re-evaluating evidence; no illegality,
irregularity, or jurisdictional error was found in
the discharge order. Impugned order upheld;
revision dismissed. (Paras 9-15)

Criminal Revision Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9
SCC 460 (Para 9)

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

Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel
for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

2. By means of this instant criminal
revision instituted u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C., the
revisionist
has
assailed
the
impugned
judgement and order dated 02.08.2022 passed
by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial
Magistrate,
Basi,
Siddharth
Nagar
in
Complaint Case No. 258 of 2005 u/s 245
Cr.P.C. (Tulsi Ram Vs. Indramati and others).

3. By the impugned judgement and
order, the trial court has allowed the
discharge application filed by the accused
u/s 245 Cr.P.C.

4. Averment has been made by
learned counsel for the revisionist that the
trial court has discharged the accused vide
impugned judgement and order without
considering the evidence on record. It has
been next submitted that complainant had
examined the witnesses u/s 244 Cr.P.C. and
produced the documentary evidence. There
was sufficient reason to frame charge
against the accused u/s 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 I.P.C. but the trial court without
applying its judicial mind to the evidence
on record has illegally discharged the
accused u/s 245 Cr.P.C. It has also been
submitted that the trial court by the
impugned judgement and order, discharged
the accused of the offence u/s 419, 420,
467, 468, 471 I.P.C. on the ground that case
u/s 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act
was allowed in favour of the accused and
the same is sub-judice before the S.O.C.
whereas
the
judgement
of
the
Consolidation Court has no impact on the
criminal proceedings. From the evidence
produced by the complainant, prima facie
offence u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.
is made out against the accused, namely,
Indramati wife of Phool Ram, Krishna Ram
and Krishna Mohan, sons of Ram Ujagir,
and Sabhapati Shukla son of Vansh Raj.
Therefore, it is requested that the impugned
judgement and order be set-aside and the
trial court be directed to proceed against the
accused after framing of charge against
them.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party nos. 2 and 3, Krishna Mohan
and Sabhapati, has submitted that the trial
court vide order dated 13.04.2011 had
illegally summoned them u/s 419, 420, 467,
468, 471 I.P.C. for trial whereas there is no
evidence against them. It has also been
submitted that the opposite party nos. 2 and
3 are merely the marginal witnesses and
writer of the will deed respectively. The
main accused, Indramati and Krishna Ram
4 All. Tulsi Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
957
have died. The trial court vide order dated
02.08.2022 has rightly and legally allowed
the application u/s 245 (2) Cr.P.C. and
discharged opposite party nos. 2 and 3 of
the charge. There is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order and there is
no ground to interfere with the same.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
and learned counsel for the opposite party
nos. 2 and 3 have been heard. Perused the
entire evidence present on the revision and
the
impugned
order
passed
by
the
revisional court.

7. The complainant Tulsi Ram alleging
that Ram Ujagir had four sons, namely,
Tulsi Ram (complainant), Krishna Ram,
Krishna Mohan and Phool Ram. Phool Ram
had died earlier and his wife Indramati and
son Vashistha were his legal heirs. After
death of Ram Ujagir, his four legal heirs,
Tulsi Ram, Krishna Ram, Krishna Mohan
and Vashistha each inherited 1/4-1/4 part of
his property through succession. The father
of the complainant, Ram Ujagir had in his
lifetime executed sale deed of 1/4th of his
agricultural land, namely, plot no. 107
situated in village- Vakainiya in the year
1985 in the favour of Mohd. Hanif and
remaining 3/4th in favour of Krishna
Mohan, Krishna Ram and Vashistha. In the
year 1988, Krishna Ram and Vashistha
executed sale deed of their share of land in
favour of Sai Mohammed etc. Krishna
Mohan and Vashistha executed sale deed of
1/5th of plot no. 109 (Gata No. 179/0.205
aer) in village- Mahua in favour of Om
Prakash
Pandey
on
12.08.1999.
On
07.07.1999, Krishna Mohan, Krishna Ram
and Vashistha executed their share of land in
plot nos. 142 and 113 in favour of Dal
Singar,
resident
of
village-
Mahua.
Vashistha executed sale deed of his share in
six plots area 1/4th of 2.347 aer and 1/2 of
plot no. 4 min jumla and plot no. 206 min
jumla 2 bighas 17 biswa and 131⁄2 dhoor in
favour
of
complaint
Tulsi
Ram
on
16.10.1999. Mutation has been done in
favour of the revisionist. The accused
Indramati, wife of Phool Ram, with
fraudulent intention prepared a forged
unregistered will dated 15.01.1995 of Ram
Ujagir. Accused, Indramati wife of Phool
Ram in order to deceive the complainant,
Tulsi Ram, fraudulently executed a forged
unregistered will dated 15.01.1995 with
forged signature of Ram Ujagir. In the
aforesaid will, Krishna Mohan and Krishna
Ram (since deceased) are the marginal
witnesses and opposite party no. 3,
Sabhapati Shukla, is the writer of the sale
deed.
The
complainant
had
given
information about the alleged offence to
concerned police station but no action was
taken. Then, he sent his application to
Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar
by registered post. On the basis of complaint
of Tulsi Ram and his statement u/s 200
Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses u/s 202
Cr.P.C. and other documentary evidence on
record, the trial court vide order dated
13.04.2011 summoned accused Indramati,
Krishna Mohan and Sabhapati for trial u/s
419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. The
complainant,
Tulsi
Ram
had
filed
information received under R.T.I. Act to the
effect that the Case No. 36/41/20, Indramati
Vs. Ram Ujagir relating to village- Mahua,
Tappa Khesraha, Pargana and Tehsil- Bansi,
Siddharth Nagar, is pending.

8. The trial court has given
following
reasons
for
allowing
the
discharge application of opposite party nos.
2 and 3 :-

इस पररिाद के समबन्ि मे र्थाना
खेसरिा की आख्या संिग्न पर्त्राििी िै, म्जसमे
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
तुिसीराम पाण्डेय, इन्रमती के नाम से फजी
िसीयत की जॉच के समबन्ि मे एक िाद डी०डी०
चकबन्दी
न्यायािय
धसद्धार्थजनगर
मे
िसीयतनामा धनरस्तीकरण का मुकदमा हकया
िै। म्जसमे न्यायािय द्वारा उि िसीयतनामा को
विधि पूणज माना गया िै, म्जसके विरूद्ध पररिादी
माननीय उच्च न्यायािय इिािाबाद मे याधचका
दाम्खि हकया। माननीय उच्च न्यायािय द्वारा
चकबन्दी अधिकारी को पुनः गुण दोष के आिार
पर मुकदमा को धनस्ताररत हकये जाने का धनदेि
हदया गया। म्जसके अनुपािन मे चकबन्दी
अधिकारी बांसी ने हदनांक 13/1/20 को यि
धनणजय पाररत हकया गया हक तुिसीराम द्वारा
प्रस्तुत प्रार्थजना पर्त्र/ आपवत्त धनस्ताररत हकया
जाता िै और िाम मिुआ, तप्पा- खेसरिा पर
परगना बांसी, तिसीि बांसी म्जिा धसद्धार्थजनगर
को जोत चकबन्दी आकार पर्त्र- 23 भाग 1 के चक
संख्या- 104, 105, 106, 109, 111, 112, 113,
114, 119, ि 127 से रामउजाधगर पुर्त्र रामअचि
का नाम खाररज िोकर िसीयतनामा हदनांहकत
15/1/95 के आिार पर इन्रमती बेिा फूिराम,
कृष्णराम,
कृष्णमोिन,
तुिसीराम
पुर्त्रगण
रामउजाधगर का नाम दजज िो।

उपरोि आदेि गुण दोष पर विश्लेषण
करने के उपरान्त पाररत हकया गया िै। अतः
इस पर सन्देि निी हकया जा सकता िै। इसके
पूिज
तिसीिदार
बांसी
द्वारा
हदनांक
15/2/2000को उि िसीयतनामा के आिार पर
िरासत का आदेि हकया गया िै।

पररिादी िारा 244 दण्ड प्रहिया
संहिता के अन्तजगत परीम्क्षत साक्षीगण अधनि
कुमार का बयान कराया गया िै, इसके अधतररि
हकसी
अन्य
स्ितन्र्त्र
गिाि
एिं
अन्य
अधभिेखीय साक्ष्य उि िसीयतनामा को फजी
सावबत करने के धिये दाम्खि निी हकया गया
िै।

पर्त्राििी पर उपिब्ि दस्तािेजो के
पररिीिन से यि स्पष्ट िोता िै हक प्रश्नगत
िसीयतनामा एक प्रमाम्णत दस्तािेज िै,
म्जसके आिार पर अधभयुिा / अंििारको का
स्ित्ि द्वारा हिस्सा प्राप्त िो चुका िै। अतः ऐसी
म्स्र्थधत मे अधभयुिा को उन्मोधचत हकये जाने
का आिार िै। चूाँहक अधभयुिगण 1 ता 2 की
मृत्यु पििे िो चुकी िै। अतः अधभयुिगण
संख्या 3 ि 4 को िारा 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 भा०द०सं० के आरोप से अिमुि हकये जाने
योग्य िै।

9. In paragraph no. 20 of the
judgement in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh
Chander and Another, (2012) 9 SCC
460, the Hon'ble Apex Court has compared
the power and extent of jurisdiction of the
High Court u/s 397 Cr.P.C. which is given
hereunder :

 20. The jurisdiction of the court
under Section 397 can be exercised so as
to examine the correctness, legality or
propriety of an order passed by the trial
court or the inferior court, as the case may
be.
Though
the
section
does
not
specifically use the expression "prevent
abuse of process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice", the
jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very
limited one. The legality, propriety or
correctness of an order passed by a court
is the very foundation of exercise of
4 All. Tulsi Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
959
jurisdiction
under
Section
397
but
ultimately it also requires justice to be
done. The jurisdiction could be exercised
where there is palpable error, noncompliance with the provisions of law, the
decision is completely erroneous or where
the
judicial
discretion
is
exercised
arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section
482 is based upon the maxim quando lex
aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur
id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e.
when the law gives anything to anyone, it
also gives all those things without which
the thing itself would be unavoidable. The
section confers very wide power on the
Court to do justice and to ensure that the
process of the court is not permitted to be
abused.

10. After comprehensive survey and
discussion of the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the factors to be
considered by the trial court while
disposing of application u/s 227 Cr.P.C.
and framing charge u/s 228 Cr.P.C., the
Apex Court in Amit Kapoor (supra) has
given following directions :

27.2. The Court should apply the
test as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made from the record of the
case
and
the
documents
submitted
therewith prima facie establish the offence
or not. If the allegations are so patently
absurd and inherently improbable that no
prudent person can ever reach such a
conclusion
and
where
the
basic
ingredients of a criminal offence are not
satisfied then the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not
unduly
interfere.
No
meticulous
examination of the evidence is needed for
considering whether the case would end in
conviction or not at the stage of framing
of charge or quashing of charge.

27.9. Another very significant
caution that the courts have to observe is
that it cannot examine the facts, evidence
and materials on record to determine
whether there is sufficient material on the
basis of which the case would end in a
conviction;
the
court
is
concerned
primarily with the allegations taken as a
whole whether they will constitute an
offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the
process of court leading to injustice.

27.10. It is neither necessary nor
is the court called upon to hold a fullfledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence
collected by the investigating agencies to
find out whether it is a case of acquittal or
conviction.

27.11. Where allegations give
rise to a civil claim and also amount to an
offence, merely because a civil claim is
maintainable, does not mean that a
criminal complaint cannot be maintained.

27.12.
In
exercise
of
its
jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or
under Section 482, the Court cannot take
into
consideration
external
materials
given by an accused for reaching the
conclusion that no offence was disclosed
or that there was possibility of his
acquittal. The Court has to consider the
record and documents annexed therewith
by the prosecution.

11. From the aforesaid pronouncement
of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding
jurisdiction of criminal revision, it is clear
that jurisdiction of revisional court is not
wide and comprehensive as that of appellate
court. In criminal revision, the revisional
court cannot re-evaluate the factual aspect of
the finding recorded by the trial court. The
revisional court has only to see whether by
passing the impugned order, the trial court
has committed any illegality, irregularity,
jurisdictional error or any impropriety.
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. From the perusal of the evidence
available on the record of criminal revision, it
transpires that the deceased testator, Ram
Ujagir had 4 sons, namely, Tulsi Ram
(complainant), Krishna Ram, Krishna Mohan
and Phool Ram. Phool Ram died earlier
leaving behind his wife, Indramati and his
son, Vashistha. By the disputed will dated
15.01.1995, Ram Ujagir gave 1/4th share of
his property to Indramati who is widow of his
deceased son Phool Ram. The revisionist,
Tulsi Ram, Krishna Mohan, Krishna Ram
and Indramati are the legal heirs of deceased
Ram Ujagir. Only 1/4th share of the property
of Ram Ujagir has been given to Indramati
through the will.

13. It has been contended on behalf of
opposite party nos. 2 and 3 that since
Vashistha, son of deceased Phool Ram, is
mentally retarded, therefore, Ram Ujagir by
his will dated 15.01.1995 has given 1/4th
share of his property in favour of Indramati,
wife of Phool Ram. Mutation has been done
by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the
legatees in the revenue record on the basis of
the will. The appeal filed against the
aforesaid order of the court of Consolidation
Officer has been dismissed. The complainant
Tulsi Ram has filed a writ against the
aforesaid order of the S.O.C. in the Allahabad
High Court which has remitted the matter to
the consolidation authorities for passing a
fresh
order
after
giving both
parties
opportunity of hearing and filing evidence.
After remand of the case, the Consolidation
Officer, Bansi has again passed order on the
basis of the will dated 15.01.1995. The trial
court has also mentioned in the impugned
order that the revisionist has not filed any
other
documentary
evidence.
The
complainant has filed u/s 244 Cr.P.C. oral
evidence of himself as well as witness, Anil
Kumar. From their evidence, no doubt is
raised about the validity of the will.

14. From the evidence on record as well
as perusal of the impugned order, it transpires
that the disputed will dated 15.01.1995 was
assailed by the revisionist/complainant before
consolidation authorities as well before the
High Court but so far no adverse finding has
been recorded against the will. Apart from
this, the validity of the disputed will can be
decided only by the civil court and so far it
has not been declared invalid by the civil
court. It is well settled law that unless validity
of a document is not assailed by a competent
court, criminal proceeding on the basis of that
document for forgery, cannot proceed.

15.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid case regarding continuance of
criminal case before finding by competent
court regarding validity of the disputed will, I
do not find any illegality, irregularity,
jurisdictional error or impropriety in the
impugned order passed by the trial court.
There is no merit in the criminal revision and
the same is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the criminal revision
is dismissed.

17. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the concerned trial court for necessary action.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 960
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5133 of 2023

Ashish Jaiswal ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties