Smt. Aruna Kesari And Another vs State Of U.P. on 16 April, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:84092
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15009 of 2025   
 
   Smt. Aruna Kesari And Another    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Abhishek Tiwari, Surya Pratap Singh Parmar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A., Radha Mohan Pandey   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 89
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Shri S.P. Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Radhan Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the caveators and Shri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following main prayer :-

"(i) set aside the order dated 07.02.2023, passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Allahabad in Criminal Complaint Case No. 52 of 2019 (Munni Rani @ Shobha Rani Vs. Smt. Aruna Kesari & Others), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 IPC, Police Station-Mutthiganj, District-Prayagrah and order dated 30.08.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Court No. 2, Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2023, (Smt. Aruna Kesari and Others vs. State of UP and Another). (Annexure No. 1 to instant Petition)."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Munni Devi alias Shobha Rani, wife of late Prakash Chandra Gupta, filed Complaint Case No.52 of 2019 against petitioners Aruna Kesari, Chandra Muni Tiwari and one Raj Bahadur alias Munna. She alleged that her father, late Sharda Prasad Kesarwani, had three children, and after his death on 23.12.1998, a forged Will dated 10.11.1998 was prepared by accused Aruna Kesari, with Raj Bahadur as an attesting witness. It was further alleged that on the basis of this Will, name of accused (petitioners) was wrongly mutated in municipal records, which was challenged by the complainant, and a civil suit for cancellation of the Will is pending. During inquiry, it was also alleged that the signatures on the Will did not match those of the deceased. The complainant?s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 02.08.2019, and statements of witnesses Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani and Hari Prasad Khare under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 14.11.2019 and 21.01.2020, wherein they supported the complaint, though with some contradictions.

4. Thereafter, the trial court directed a police inquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., and the police submitted its report on 17.08.2021. In the inquiry, the petitioners stated that the deceased had distributed his properties during his lifetime by way of gifts and Wills among his children and grandson, and that the Will in question was validly executed in their presence. After considering the material, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9, Allahabad dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by order dated 06.10.2021. Against this, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 516 of 2021, which was allowed on 20.08.2022 by the revisional court, and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. Subsequently, on 07.02.2023, the trial court summoned the petitioners under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 471 IPC. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.132 of 2023 on 04.03.2023. However, the revisional court, by order dated 30.08.2025, dismissed the revision without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. It is submitted that the dispute in the present case essentially relates to the validity of a Will dated 10.11.1998, which is already under challenge before the competent civil court in Original Suit No. 547 of 2002 (Smt. Munni vs. Smt. Aruna Kesari). The question whether the said Will is genuine or forged is a matter of civil adjudication, requiring detailed evidence, including examination of signatures and attesting witnesses. Such an issue squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the civil court. It is well settled that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes, particularly where the matter is already sub-judice before a civil court.

7. It is further submitted that a mere allegation that a Will is forged does not, by itself, constitute a criminal offence unless the same is established through cogent evidence. Until the civil court records a finding regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the Will, initiation of criminal proceedings on the same set of allegations is premature and amounts to abuse of the process of law. The complainant cannot be permitted to convert a purely civil dispute into a criminal case to exert pressure upon the petitioners.

8. It is also noteworthy that the Will in question was executed on 10.11.1998, whereas the present complaint has been filed in the year 2019, i.e., after an unexplained delay of about 20 years. This delay becomes even more significant in view of the fact that the complainant had knowledge of the Will much earlier, as is evident from the pending civil proceedings. Such inordinate delay seriously affects the credibility of the allegations and indicates that the complaint is an afterthought.

9. Moreover, on the basis of the said Will, mutation was carried out in favour of the petitioners in municipal records. The said mutation was challenged by the complainant in Misc. Mutation Appeal No. 218 of 2019 (Smt. Munni Rani vs. Tax Inspector, Nagar Nigam and others), which was dismissed on 23.03.2012. This further shows that the complainant has already availed appropriate remedies under civil law and failed therein. The present criminal proceedings, therefore, appear to be a second attempt to challenge the same issue under the guise of criminal allegations. In view of the above, it is submitted that the present proceedings are nothing but a misuse of the criminal justice system for settling a civil dispute, and therefore, deserve to be quashed.

10. Learned counsel for caveators submitted that the complainant has consistently supported her case at every stage of the proceedings, and her version is duly corroborated by the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The allegations made in the complaint are not vague or bald, but are supported by oral as well as expert evidence recorded during the proceedings under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that one of the crucial aspects of the case is that the alleged Will is shown to have been attested by witnesses whose signatures themselves are in dispute. P.W.-2, Kuldeep Kumar Kesharwani, who is cited as an attesting witness to the Will, was examined during the proceedings and he has categorically denied his signatures on the said Will. This directly strikes at the root of the document and creates a strong prima facie case of forgery.

11. In addition, P.W.-3, Hari Prakash Khare, who is a handwriting expert, has also been examined and he has clearly opined that the signatures of the deceased, Sharda Prasad, on the alleged Will do not match with his admitted signatures on an earlier Will. This expert opinion further strengthens the case of the complainant and provides scientific support to the allegation that the Will is forged. It is, therefore, submitted that at this stage, the court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out for proceeding against the accused. The detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of summoning. In the present case, the complainant?s statement, supported by denial of signatures by the attesting witness and the opinion of the handwriting expert, clearly discloses sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners. Hence, the summoning order as well as the order passed in revision are justified and do not call for interference.

12. Heard learned counsels and perused the records. It is evident that allegation of forgery regarding the Will dated 10.11.1998 has been made after about 20 years, even though the respondent was aware of the Will since the beginning, as shown by the filing of Original Suit No. 547 of 2002 for its cancellation. Such a long delay creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the allegations and suggests that the criminal proceedings have been started later as an afterthought.

13. It is also clear that allegations of forgery, especially regarding a document affecting title, cannot be decided only on the basis of statements made by the complainant and her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In the present case, although P.W.-2 Kuldeep Kumar Kesharwani stated that his signatures were taken on blank papers, a person who makes such an assertion is himself required to prove it by reliable evidence. A mere bald allegation to this effect cannot be made the basis for proceeding against the accused for forgery, particularly when the witness has not denied his signatures altogether. Such claims require strict proof and can only be properly tested during trial through cross-examination. Similarly, the opinion of a handwriting expert at this initial stage cannot by itself justify criminal proceedings without full examination of evidence.

14. Further, the validity of the Will is already under consideration before the civil court, where both parties have the opportunity to lead proper evidence. In such a situation, allowing criminal proceedings to continue on the same issue, based only on one-sided statements, is not appropriate. The matter is essentially civil in nature and should be decided in the civil proceedings.

15. Interference under Article 227 is justified where lower courts act mechanically, ignore important facts, or cause injustice. In the present case, the trial court passed the summoning order without proper application of mind, and the revisional court also failed to correct this error. This amounts to misuse of the process of law. Accordingly, this Court holds that the orders dated 07.02.2023 and 30.08.2025 suffer from legal errors and cannot be sustained.

16. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is allowed and both the impugned order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the trial court in Criminal Complaint Case No.52 of 2019 as well as order dated 30.08.2025 passed by revisional court in Criminal Revision No.132 of 2023 are hereby set aside.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

April 16, 2026