Vinay Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6682 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vinay Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139725
 
Court No. - 82
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4462 of 2025
 

 
Revisionist :- Vinay Kumar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Jai Shankar Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Jai Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.

2. The instant revision has been filed on behalf of the revisionist with the prayer to allow the revision and set-aside the judgment and order dated 12.6.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge, IV, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2025, under Sections 427, 468 and 471 IPC, (Haribansh Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and another).

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist filed a criminal complaint against opposite parties no.2 and 3 and one another and learned Magistrate on 6.11.2024 was pleased to summon them for offences under Sections 427,468 and 471 IPC but when against summoning order dated 6.11.2024 opposite parties no.2 and 3 preferred criminal revision before Sessions Court then vide order dated 12.6.2025 learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed their revision and set aside the summoning order dated 6.11.2024 and remitted back the matter to the Magistrate concerned to decide the matter afresh.

4. He further submits that the impugned order dated 12.6.2025 passed by lower revisional court is wholly illegal.

5. He further submits that after considering entire facts in detail learned Magistrate issued summons against opposite parties no.2 and 3 and there was no illegality in the summoning order dated 6.11.2024 but in spite of that lower revisional court set aside the summoning order dated 6.11.2024 and thus committed illegality.

6. He further submits that from the complaint filed by revisionist and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that through forged sale deed the portion of the house of the revisionist has been sold by opposite parties no.2 and 3 to third person and, therefore, it cannot be said that offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC are not made out against them.

7. He further submits that even from the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it also reflects that opposite parties no.2 and 3 also caused damages to the revisionist and, therefore, it cannot be said that they did not commit offence under Section 427 IPC.

8. He further submits that from the criminal complaint and statements of the witnesses it is apparent that opposite parties no.2 and 3 committed offences under Sections 427, 468 and 471 IPC and, therefore, learned trial court rightly summoned them vide order dated 6.11.2024 but in spite of that lower revisional court allowed the revision filed by opposite parties no.2 and 3 and quashed the summoning order dated 6.11.2024.

9. He further submits that therefore, the impugned order dated 12.6.2025 passed by the lower revisional court is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

10. Per contra learned AGA submits that the impugned order dated 12.6.2025 is well reasoned order and there is no illegality in the order dated 12.6.2025. He next submits that from the summoning order dated 6.11.2024 it reflects that learned Magistrate accepted the allegations levelled against opposite parties no.2 and 3 and without analysing the fact that whether offences under Sections 427, 468 and 471 IPC are made out or not, summoned the opposite parties no.2 and 3 and, therefore, by impugned order dated 12.6.2025 lower revisional court rightly interfered and rightly allowed the revision filed by opposite parties no.2 and 3.

11. He further submits that even from the allegations levelled against opposite parties no.2 and 3 it reflects that the present matter attracts civil liability.

12. He further submits that if a wrong sale deed has been executed by opposite parties no.2 and 3 then revisionist can knock the door of civil court for cancellation of sale deed.

13. He next submits that from the impugned order dated 12.6.2025 passed by lower revisional court it reflects that while passing the same the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim and another Vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2010 SC 347 has been discussed and relied. He next submits, after perusing the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) prima facie it could not be reflected that opposite parties no.2 and 3 committed offences under Sections 468 and 471 PC.

14. He further submits that order dated 12.6.2025 passed by lower revisional court is perfectly a legal order and while passing the same no illegality has been committed rather the illegality committed by learned Magistrate while passing the summoning order dated 6.11.2024 has been rectified.

15. He further submits that that therefore, instant revision filed by revisionist is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed.

16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

17. Revisionist is the complainant of the case and he filed a criminal complaint against opposite parties no.2 and 3 and one another and on 6.11.2024 learned Magistrate, however, summoned them for offences under Sections 427, 468 and 471 IPC but when opposite parties no.2 and 3 preferred a criminal revision before Sessions Court against the summoning order dated 6.11.2024 then their revision was allowed vide impugned order dated 12.6.2025 and summoning order dated 6.11.2024 passed by learned Magistrate has been set aside and lower revisional court remanded back the matter to the Magistrate for deciding the matter afresh.

18. From the complaint filed by revisionist and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it reflects that as per allegation opposite parties no.2 and 3 along with one another executed the sale deed in favour of one Lakshya Gupta and along with their property they also executed sale deed of the property of the revisionist and earlier they also caused damages to the revisionist by damaging his property, therefore, it appears, prima facie allegations made against opposite parties no.2 and 3 attract civil liability and revisionist can approach the civil court for cancellation of alleged sale deed executed by opposite parties no.2 and 3.

19. Further, considering the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) on which reliance was placed by learned lower revisional court even no offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC is made out against opposite parties no.2 and 3 even if allegations are accepted.

20. It appears that while summoning opposite parties no.2 and 3 learned Magistrate did not consider above facts and, therefore, in view of this Court while allowing revision filed by opposite parties no.2 and 3 and setting aside the summoning order dated 6.11.2024 the learned lower revisional court did not commit any illegality.

21. Further, however, as per allegation opposite parties no.2 and 3 and one another along with their associates also damaged the house of the revisionist through JCB Machine but from the criminal complaint filed by revisionist it reflects that this incident was occurred on 29.5.2021 but revisionist filed the complaint on 6.2.2023, i.e., after more than one and half years and, therefore, he filed the complaint against opposite parties no.2 and 3 and one another very belatedly and no plausible explanation in this regard has been given by him. It appears that while passing the summoning order dated 6.11.2024 learned Magistrate also did not consider this fact.

22. Further, law is settled that summoning of a person in a criminal case is a very serious matter and a person should not be summoned in a criminal case in routine manner but it appears that while summoning opposite parties no.2 and 3 and one another learned Magistrate did not consider this settled legal preposition.

23. Further, from the perusal of the impugned order dated 12.6.2025 passed by lower revisional court it reflects that while passing the same all the relevant factors have been duly considered, therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 12.6.2025. In view of this Court learned lower revisional court rightly interfered with the matter and rightly set aside the order dated 6.11.2024 passed against opposite parties no.2 and 3 and one another.

24. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, instant revision filed by revisionist is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 18.8.2025

SKM