# Virat Pachauri & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr. 952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 951
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-23
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 20686 of 2023
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virat-pachauri-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-952-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-50976
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 157-, 311-A & 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 379,
420, 467, 471 & 505 - Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 - Section - 73 - Application u/s 482
- for quashing the charge sheet and summoning
order - FIR - charge sheet - impugned
summoning order - applicant taken plea that,
the matter is purely civil and should be decided
by a civil court, the criminal court has no
jurisdiction to decide the genuineness or validity
of the document - as well as the FSL report
used to support the charge of forgery was
inadmissible
as
it
was
obtained
without
permission from the court concern - the Court
finds that - no suit is pending for cancellation of
the alleged forged deed and even the FSL report
obtained by the investigating officer clearly
shows that the signature of the father of the
opposite party no. 2 was forged - court held
that, it cannot be said that no case is made out
and the case is purely Civil in nature - further,
forgery is a criminal offence and can be tried
even if a civil suit is pending - The Court also
held that, the applicants had concealed material
facts by not disclosing the rejection of their
discharge and revision applications - Since
charges have already been framed and no
challenge to those orders was made in the
present application, therefore, the court does
not find any merit in the case - consequently,
application is rejected - without prejudice rights
of the applicants to challenge the rejecting the
discharge applicant and revisional court order
before the appropriate forum - directions
issued, accordingly.
(Para - 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)

Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Virat Pachauri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
951
 jurisdiction
to
quash
the
criminal
proceeding."

10. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi
Narayan observed in paragraph no.13.4
as under:-

"iv) offences under Section 307
IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in
the category of heinous and serious
offences and therefore are to be treated
as crime against the society and not
against
the
individual
alone,
and
therefore, the criminal proceedings for
the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or
the Arms Act etc. which have a serious
impact on the society cannot be quashed
in exercise of powers under Section 482
of the Code, on the ground that the
parties have resolved their entire dispute
amongst themselves. However, the High
Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed
under this provision. It would be open to
the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there
for the sake of it or the prosecution has
collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to framing the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose,
it would be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such
injury
is
inflicted
on
the
vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used etc. However, such an
exercise by the High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is
collected after investigation and the
charge sheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such exercise is
not permissible when the matter is still
under
investigation.
Therefore,
the
ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6
and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in
the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should
be read harmoniously and to be read as a
whole and in the circumstances stated
hereinabove;"

11. Therefore, in such peculiar facts
and circumstances, it would be unfair and
contrary to interest of justice to continue
with impugned criminal proceeding.

12. In view of the above facts and
legal position as well as law laid down by
the Apex Court in the judgment of Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another
(2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh &
Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another
(2014) 6 SCC 477 and State of M.P. Vs.
Laxmi Narayan, AIR 2019 SC 1296 and
State of M.P. Vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017
SC 1106, the proceedings of Case No.3503
of 2006 (State Vs. Dullu @ Mahboob and
others), arising out of Case Crime No.94 of
2006, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 376
IPC,
Police
Station
Saini,
District
Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, is hereby
quashed.

13. In view of the aforesaid
observations, the application is allowed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 951
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 20686 of 2023

Virat Pachauri & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicants:
Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, Sri Nipun
Singh, Sri Rishi Upadhya, Sri Ajay Gautam,
Sri Abhijeet Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Vibhu Rai

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 157-, 311-A & 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 379,
420, 467, 471 & 505 - Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 - Section - 73 - Application u/s 482
- for quashing the charge sheet and summoning
order - FIR - charge sheet - impugned
summoning order - applicant taken plea that,
the matter is purely civil and should be decided
by a civil court, the criminal court has no
jurisdiction to decide the genuineness or validity
of the document - as well as the FSL report
used to support the charge of forgery was
inadmissible
as
it
was
obtained
without
permission from the court concern - the Court
finds that - no suit is pending for cancellation of
the alleged forged deed and even the FSL report
obtained by the investigating officer clearly
shows that the signature of the father of the
opposite party no. 2 was forged - court held
that, it cannot be said that no case is made out
and the case is purely Civil in nature - further,
forgery is a criminal offence and can be tried
even if a civil suit is pending - The Court also
held that, the applicants had concealed material
facts by not disclosing the rejection of their
discharge and revision applications - Since
charges have already been framed and no
challenge to those orders was made in the
present application, therefore, the court does
not find any merit in the case - consequently,
application is rejected - without prejudice rights
of the applicants to challenge the rejecting the
discharge applicant and revisional court order
before the appropriate forum - directions
issued, accordingly.
(Para - 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)

Application Rejected. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Uttar Pradesh Vs Ram Babu Misra;
(1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 343,
2. Sukhvinder Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj.;
(1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 152,

3. Criminal Appeal No. 804 of 2001 in Sapan
Haldar & anr. Vs St. decided on 25.05.2012,

4. Crl. M. A. No. 14076 of 2012 in Criminal
Appeal No.582 of 2012 (Raj Kumar Vs St.)
decided on 18.10.2012,

5. Criminal Appeal Nos.575 and 576 of 2011
Santosh Vs St. (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi decided on
28.04.2023 - (Manu/SC0499/2023),

6. Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2018 (K.D. Sharma
Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. & ors. decided
on 09.07.2008,

7. Civil Appeal No. 3827 of 2007 (Prestige Light
Ltd. Vs St. Bank of India) decided on
20.08.2007,

8. Sant Lal Gupta & ors. Vs Modern Cooperative
Group Housing Society Ltd. & ors. - (2010) 13
SCC 336,

9. S. Kasi Vs St. through Inspector of Police,
Samaynallur Polie Station, Madurai District -
(2021) 12 SCC 1,

10. Criminal Appeal No. 1793 of 2023 (Pratibha
Manchanda & ors. Vs St. of Har. & ors. decided
on 07.07.2023.

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

1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh along with
Sri Rishi Upadhya, Ajay Gautam and
Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the
applicants, Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 and learned
AGA for the State.

2. Present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
charge sheet dated 07.07.2022 as well as
summoning order dated 12.07.2022 giving
rise to Case No. 25474 of 2022 arising out
of Case Crime No.0544 of 2021, under
1 All. Virat Pachauri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
953
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 379, 505
IPC, Police Station- Bannadevi, District
Aligarh.

3. The contention of counsel for the
applicants is that it is an undisputed fact
that Munna Lal has been residing in the
factory in question as a security guard. It
was also submitted that the sole basis for
submitting the charge sheet is the FSL
report regarding the signature of Surendra
Kumar (father of opposite party no.2) as
the same was sent to FSL without
permission of the court concerned but the
same
was
obtained
only
with
the
permission of civil court where the suit for
injunction filed by the applicant no.1 was
pending, therefore, the said FSL report is
inadmissible and cannot be relied upon in
view of Section 311 A Cr.P.C. as well as
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

4. In support his contention, learned
counsel for the applicants has relied upon
the judgements of the Supreme Court (i)
State of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Babu
Misra; (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases
343, (ii) Sukhvinder Singh and others vs
State of Punjab; (1994) 5 Supreme Court
Cases 152, (iii) judgement of Delhi High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 804 of 2001
in Sapan Haldar & Another vs State
decided on 25.05.2012, (iv) another
judgement of the Delhi High Court in Crl.
M. A. No. 14076 of 2012 in Criminal
Appeal No.582 of 2012 (Raj Kumar vs
State)
decided
on
18.10.2012,
(v)
Criminal Appeal Nos.575 and 576 of
2011 Santosh vs. State (G.N.C.T.) of
Delhi decided on 28.04.2023 reported in
Manu/SC0499/2023).
In
all
these
judgements the Hon'ble Apex Court and
Delhi High Court observed regarding the
scope of Section 311-A and Section 73 of
Indian Evidence Act.

5. It is further contended by learned
counsel for the applicants that the dispute
in question is a purely civil dispute and
whether forgery committed in preparing the
deed in question can be decided by the civil
court after examining the evidence and
criminal court has no jurisdiction to decide
such type of civil dispute.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 submitted that the
present 482 Cr.P.C. application itself is an
abuse of the process of the court because
prior to filing the present application U/S
482 Cr.P.C., a discharge application was
filed by the applicants before the court
below on 17.04.2023 which was rejected
on 18.05.2023 thereafter revision was filed
on 12.05.2023 and the same was also
rejected on 23.06.2023 but all these facts
were not brought on record, therefore there
is material concealment on the part of the
applicants.

7. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
has relied on the judgements of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4270 of
2018 (K.D. Sharma vs Steel Authority of
India
Ltd.
And
Ors
decided
on
09.07.2008 as well as in Civil Appeal
No.3827 of 2007 (Prestige Light Ltd. vs
State
Bank
of
India)
decided
on
20.08.2007. In both these judgements, the
Apex Court observed that if there is
suppression of material facts on the part of
any parties, then those parties shall not be
entitled to any relief from the High Court.
It is further contended that co-accused
Ashok Kumar had filed 482 Cr.P.C.
Application No.17191 of 2023 challenging
the same criminal proceeding which was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated
09.05.2023. Therefore, once the quashing
of criminal proceedings has been refused
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the High Court at the instance of coaccused then another application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. application on behalf
of
another
co-accused
cannot
be
entertained.

8. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
has further relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta
and others vs Modern Cooperative
Group Housing Society Limited and
others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336 and
in the case of S. Kasi vs State through
Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Polie
Station, Madurai District reported in
(2021) 12 SCC 1. In both judgements, the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench should
be respected, if the Co-ordinate Bench does
not agree with the principle of another
Bench then the matter may be referred to a
larger Bench. It is also observed by the
Apex Court that it is neither desirable nor
permissible for the co-ordinate Bench to
disapprove the earlier judgement and take a
contrary view to it.

9. It is also contended by learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 that he
has not filed any suit for cancellation of the
deed in question till date because forgery in
preparing the document is punishable under
IPC. If from the report of FSL, it is proved
that forgery has been committed then
criminal proceeding is not barred. In
support of his contention, he has relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 1793 of 2023
(Pratibha Manchanda and Ors. vs State
of
Haryana
and
Ors.
decided
on
07.07.2023. In the above judgement, the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that merely
the pendency of a civil suit between the
parties does not stop the issue of forgery
and fabrication being considered in the
course of criminal investigation.

10. It is lastly submitted by learned
counsel for the opposite no.2 that I.O. in
the present case after permission of the
civil court, obtained a copy of the deed in
question and sent for FSL to examine the
geniuses of signature. It is also submitted
that after the rejection of the discharge
application of the applicants, the charge has
already been framed before the court below
and they are free to raise all the issues
before the court below.

11. Learned AGA also contended that
from perusal of the case diary prima facie
case of forgery is made out and so far as
the geniuses and legality of the report of
FSL is concerned, the same can be
challenged
by
the
applicants
at
an
appropriate stage.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant,
in his reply to the contention of counsel for
the opposite party no.2 submitted that
judgement passed in Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. filed by co-accused Ashok Kumar
can prohibit him from filing the present
application as no issue was decided in that
application and order was passed on the
consent of the parties for applying
discharge application.

13.

Considering
the
aforesaid
submission of learned counsel for the
parties and after perusal of record, three
questions arise for consideration before this
Court.

(i) Whether before sending a
document to Forensic Science Laboratory
to determine the genuineness of signature
over this document with the undisputed
document, Investigation Officer is required
1 All. Virat Pachauri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
955
to seek permission of concerned Magistrate
under Section 311-A Cr.P.C. as well as
under Section 73 of Evidence Act.

(ii) Whether there is material
concealment of fact by the applicant for
non-disclosing the parallel proceeding of
discharge application filed by the applicant.

(iii)
Whether
the
impugned
proceeding is civil in nature which can be
decided by the Civil Court.

14. So far as the submission of
counsel for the applicants, that FSL report
was
obtained
by
the
I.O.
without
permission of the concerned criminal court
in view of the bar of Section 311A Cr.P.C.
as well as Section 73 of the Indian
Evidence Act is concerned, the same is
misconceived because, in the judgements
cited above by the counsel for the
applicants, the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly
observed in those judgements that Section
73 of Indian Evidence Act is applicable
during trial and not during investigation.

15. Paragraph 20 of the judgement of
the Apex Court in the case of Sukhivinder
Singh and others vs State of Punjab
(supra) is quoted hereinbelow;

"20. The second paragraph of
Section 73 (supra) enables the court to
direct any person present before it to give
his specimen writing "for the purpose of
enabling the court to compare" such
writings with writings alleged to have been
written by such person. The obvious
implication of the words " for the purpose
of enabling the court to compare" is that
there is some proceeding pending before
the court in which or as a consequence of
which it is necessary for the court to
compare such writings. The direction is
therefore required to be given for the
purpose of "enabling the court to compare"
and not for the purpose of enabling an
investigating or a prosecuting agency to
obtain and produce as evidence in the case
the specimen writings for their ultimate
comparison with the disputed writings.
Where the case is still under investigation
and no proceedings are pending in any
court in which it might be necessary to
compare the two writings, the person
(accused) cannot be compelled to give his
specimen writings. The language of Section
73 does not permit any court to give a
direction to an accused to give his
specimen writing for comparison in a
proceeding which may subsequently be
instituted in some other competent court.
Section 73 of the Evidence Act in our
opinion cannot be made use of for
collecting specimen writings during the
investigation and recourse to it can be had
only when the enquiry or the trial court
before which proceedings are pending
requires the writing for the purpose of
'enabling it to compare' the same. A court
holding an enquiry under the Code of
Criminal Procedure is indeed entitled
under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to
direct an accused person appearing before
it to give his specimen handwriting to
enable the court by which he may be
subsequently tried to compare it with the
dispute writings. Therefore, in our opinion,
the court that can issue a direction to the
person to give his specimen writing can
either by the court holding the enquiry
under the Code of Criminal Procedure or
the court trying the accused person with a
view to enable it to compare the specimen
writings with the writings alleged to have
been written by such a person. A court that
is not holding an enquiry under the Code of
Criminal Procedure or conducting the trial
is not permitted, in the plain language of
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 73 of the Evidence Act, to issue any
direction of the nature contained in the
second paragraph of Section 73 of the
Evidence Act. The words " any person
present in the court" in Section 73 a
reference only to such persons who are
parties to a case pending before the court
and in a given case may even include the
witnesses in the said cause but where there
is no cause pending before the court for its
determination, the question of obtaining for
the purposes of comparison of handwriting
of a person may not arise at all and
therefore, the provisions of Section 73 of
the
Evidence
Act
would
have
no
application."

16. Similarly, paragraph 51 of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Santosh Vs. State (G.N.G.T.) of Delhi
(supra) is quoted hereinbelow;

"51 In the instant case, Neeraj's
specimens of handwriting and signature
were obtained by the investigating agency
during investigation when there existed no
specific provision in the Code regulating
the procedure for obtaining such specimens
and there existed no provision proscribing
the investigating agency from obtaining
specimens of handwriting/signature of an
Accused or a suspect. As far as the
provisions of Section 73 of the IEA, 1872
are
concerned,
they
apply
when
a
proceeding such as an inquiry or trial is
pending in a Court. Since no proceedings
were pending before any Court when the
specimens in question were obtained,
provisions of Section 73 of the IEA, 1872
could not have been invoked. In such a
situation, as there existed no legal
provision proscribing an investigating
agency from obtaining specimens of
handwriting/signature of a suspect or an
Accused, in our view, the investigating
agency had the power to collect such
material including specimen handwriting/
signature as to assist the prosecution to
introduce a relevant fact or corroborate
and piece of evidence on a relevant fact/
fact in issue. For the reasons above, in our
considered view, the expert report (i.e. FSL
report) obtained during investigation by the
investigation
agency,
predicated
on
specimens of handwriting/ signature of
Neeraj obtained during investigation, could
not have been discarded merely because it
was obtained during investigation and
without an order/permission of the Court
as contemplated Under Section 73 of the
IEA, 1872."

17. In the above judgement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was clearly
observed that Section 73 of Evidence Act is
not applicable during investigation.

18. So far as Section 311-A Cr.P.C.,
the contention of learned counsel for the
applicants regarding required permission of
Magistrate under Section 311-A Cr.P.C.
before sending document to FSL is
concerned, it is clear from perusal of
Section 311-A Cr.P.C. itself that it is an
enabling provision. It empowers the Court
to compel any person to give his specimen
signature
or
handwriting
during
investigation or other proceeding before the
Court. Section 311-A Cr.P.C. is reproduced
hereinunder;

"311-A. Power of Magistrate to
order person to give specimen signatures
or handwriting.- If a Magistrate of the first
class is satisfied that, for the purposes of
any investigation or proceeding under this
Code, it is expedient to direct any person,
including an accused person, to give
specimen signatures or handwriting, he
may make an order to that effect and in that
1 All. Virat Pachauri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
957
case the person to whom the order relates
shall be produced or shall attend at the
time and place specified in such order and
shall give his specimen signatures or
handwriting:

Provided that no order shall be
made under this section unless the person
has at some time been arrested in
connection with such investigation or
proceeding."

19. Perusal of Section 311-A Cr.P.C.
itself shows that it does not prescribe any
prior permission on the part of Investigating
Officer during investigation for sending any
document to Forensic Science Laboratory to
examine the genuineness of signature.
Power of Investigating Officer during
investigation is clearly prescribed under
Section 157 Cr.P.C. Section 157 Cr.P.C.
prescribes procedure for investigation and
permits the Investigation Officer to take all
measures for discovery. Section 157 Cr.P.C.
is being quoted hereinbelow;

"157.
Procedure
for
investigation.-
If,
from
information
received or otherwise, an officer in
charge of a police station has reason to
suspect the commission of an offence
which he is empowered under section 156
to investigate, he shall forthwith send a
report of the same to a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of such
offence upon a police report and shall
proceed in person, or shall depute one of
his subordinate officers not being below
such rank as the State Government may,
by general or special order, prescribe in
this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to
investigate the facts and circumstances of
the case, and, if necessary, to take
measures for the discovery and arrest of
the offender; Provided that

(a) when information as to the
commission of any such offence is given
against any person by name and the case is
not of a serious nature, the officer in
charge of a police station need not proceed
in person or depute a subordinate officer to
make an investigation on the spot;

(b) if it appears to the officer in
charge of a police station that there is no
sufficient ground for entering on an
investigation, he shall not investigate the
case.

[Provided further that in relation
to an offence of rape, the recording of
statement of the victim shall be conducted
at the residence of the victim or in the place
of her choice and as far as practicable by a
woman police officer in the presence of her
parents or guardian or near relatives or
social worker of the locality.]

(2)
In
each
of
the
cases
mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the
proviso to sub- section (1), the officer in
charge of the police station shall state in
his report his reasons for not fully
complying with the requirements to that
sub- section, and, in the case mentioned in
clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer
shall also forthwith notify to the informant,
if any, in such manner as may be
prescribed by the State Government, the
fact that he will not investigate the case or
cause it to be investigated."

20. From the above reasoning as well
as from perusal of Section 311-A and 157
Cr.P.C., it is clear that during investigation
if undisputed signature in any document is
available then Investigating Officer can
send the document containing disputed
signature to Forensic Science Laboratory to
determine the genuineness of signature
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
over disputed document. Therefore, this
Court holds that Investigating Officer is
not required to seek prior permission of
concerned Magistrate for sending any
document
to
Forensic
Science
Laboratory to determine the genuineness
of signature over the disputed document
and question of seeking direction from
the Magistrate under Section 311-A
Cr.P.C. arises only when direction is
necessary to a particular person to give
specimen signature or handwriting for
the purpose of examination.

21. Apart from this, it is also clear
from the record that before sending the
alleged forged deed for the FSL report,
permission to obtain the original deed was
received from the concerned civil court and
after seeking permission from the civil
court where the suit filed by the applicants
was pending, same was sent to FSL and
report of FSL prima faice could be the
proof of forgery allegedly committed
regarding the signature of the father of
opposite party no.2, for filing charge sheet.

22. It appears from the submission of
opposite party no.2 as well as on perusal of
the record that before filing the present
application, applicants have already filed a
discharge
application
which
was
subsequently rejected on 18.05.2023 during
the pendency of the present application and
revision against the rejection of discharge
application was also rejected on 23.06.2023
during the pendency of the present
application but these facts were not brought
on record by the applicants till objection
raised by the counsel for the opposite party
no.2 regarding concealment of facts. The
above conduct of applicants shows that
they are pursuing a parallel remedy in two
different courts and this fact was also
cancelled by this Court. Therefore, there
is material concealment on the part of
the applicants regarding the rejection of
the discharge application. Even otherwise
discharge application was rejected up to
revisional court, then the applicants can
challenge the order of the revisional court,
if they are aggrieved against the rejection
of the discharge application.

23. So far as submission of counsel
for the applicants that the present dispute is
absolutely civil in nature and the alleged
deed in question can be quashed by the
civil court after taking evidence and the
criminal court has no jurisdiction to decide
the
genuineness
or
validity
of
the
document, the same is also misconceived
because alleged deed being unregistered
document does not create any legal right
over the property hence no decree of the
civil court is required to cancel the same
but this document was used in suit filed by
the applicant no.1 to obtain injunction as
well as to obtain licence to run Banquet
Hall over the property of Company belongs
to opposite party no.2 though same is
allegedly forged and for that forgery
criminal court is competent to try the case.

24. In the present case no suit is
pending for cancellation of the alleged
forged deed and even the FSL report
obtained by the investigating officer clearly
shows that the signature of the father of
opposite party no.2 was forged. Therefore,
at this stage, it cannot be said that no
case is made out and the case is purely
civil in nature. Even otherwise, once the
discharge application of the applicants has
been rejected and revision against that
order was also rejected and now charges
have been framed and those orders are not
under-challenged in the present application
and actually these orders were concealed
from this Court, therefore this Court does
1 All. Head Constable, Kanpur Dehat & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
959
not find any merit in the present case
application.

25. Therefore, the present application
is rejected without prejudice rights of the
applicants to challenge the order rejecting
the discharge application and order of the
revisional court before the appropriate
forum.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 959
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 30340 of 2023

Head Constable, Kanpur Dehat & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri
Ganesh
Shanker
Srivastava,
Sri
Mahendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482 - Constitution of India,
1950 - Article 227 - Application u/s 482 - for
quashing the impugned order as well as
summoning order - Preliminary objection -
regarding
maintainability
of
the
Application
u/section 482 against a judicial order - Court while
referring the judgments passed by the Apex Court,
in case of 'Radhey Shyam Vs St. of U.P.' & 'Prabhu
Chawla Vs St. of Rajasthan & Another', held that -
Judicial orders should be challenged through an
alternative
remedy
or
in
the
supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution, not under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., - except in exceptional case - accordingly,
present Application is dismissed. (Para - 4)
Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Radhey Shyam Vs St. of U.P. - (2015) 5 SCC
423,

2. Prabhu Chawla Vs St. of Raj. & anr.- (2015)
17 SCC 562.

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

1. By way of present Application, the
applicants have challenged the order dated
15.03.2021 passed by Sessions Judge,
Kanpur Dehat as well as summoning order
dated 02.04.2022 passed by Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/F.T.C. (Crime Against
Women), District Kanpur Dehat.

2. A preliminary objection has been
raised by learned A.G.A. as per order of the
Apex Court passed in the case of Radhey
Shyam Vs. State of U.P. reported in
(2015) 5 SCC 423, wherein it is observed
that all the judicial orders will be
challenged under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that there is confusion in Registry
of the High Court whether the judicial
order passed by the court below can be
challenged under Application 482 Cr.P.C.
or under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.

4. This Court is of the view that
Hon'ble Apex Court clearly observed in the
aforesaid judgment that all the judicial
orders will be challenged in the supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, therefore,
judicial
orders
should
normally
be
challenged under Article 227 of the