Rajman @ Rajmani Pandey and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3547 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2The present revision has been filed against the order dated 6.6.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Case No. 4088 of 2018 (State vs. Rajman and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 697 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Manjhanpur, District-Kaushambi, whereby the application moved by the revisionists under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

¶3Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the dispute in question is of purely civil nature, however the revisionists have falsely been implicated and have illegally been dragged into criminal litigation. He next submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi without going into the facts of the case and the allegations made therein, has rejected the discharge application, whereas the allegations made in the F.I.R. bearing no. 697 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 147, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. does not disclose any criminal offence as alleged. He further submitted that the informant / complainant and the revisionists belong to the same family and therefore, in order to wreak vengeance, the first information report has been lodged.

¶4On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the forgery has been committed by the revisionist with regard to the documents those are under challenge and on the basis of the forged documents, the said sale deed has been executed and therefore, it is a matter of trail that, as to whether any document was forged and fabricated which was used while executing the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rama Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Maheep Kumar, Pramod Kumar Pandey Rajman @ Rajmani Pandey And 4 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) said sale deed, therefore, every aspect would be considered during the course of trial. He further submitted that the present revision is devoid of merits and prayed that the same be dismissed.

¶5Having regard to the rival submissions, in the present case crime there are number of documents and oral evidence is likely to be adduced, which can only be done during the course of trial and at the stage of framing of charge or carrying inquiry in the matter, a prima facie case is to be seem, and each and every aspect of the quality of evidence cannot be looked into. The revisionists will have ample opportunity during the course of trial for defending his case and cross-examine the witnesses, hence no interference is called for, as no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in the impugned order dated 6.6.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi.

¶6The revision is accordingly dismissed. September 26, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 3547 of 2024 (Harvir Singh,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad