[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Smt Kamlesh Devi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 31 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:67365
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13945 of 2025
Smt Kamlesh Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Rahul Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K.Gupta, learned AGA for the State are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Criminal SS Misc. Case No. 1172/12/2024, Computer Case No. 1688/2024, (Smt. Kamlesh Devi Vs Jeetu and others) as well as order dated 11.09.2025 passed by learned Session Judge, Hathras in Criminal revision No. 84 of 2025 (Smt. Kamlesh Devi Vs State of U.P. and others).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent came to the house of the petitioner and took her original sale deed and also obtained the thumb impression of the petitioner on some blank papers. It is alleged that the respondents misused blank papers bearing her thumb impression as well as the sale deed to secure a loan from a bank. It is further submitted that the petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court concerned. However, the learned Magistrate treated the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 1688 of 2024 (Smt. Kamlesh Devi vs. Jeetu and others) as a complaint case.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order dated 25.03.2025 by filing Criminal Revision No. 84 of 2025 (Smt. Kamlesh Devi vs. State of U.P. and others). However, the revisional court also upheld the order dated 25.03.2025 and dismissed the revision on 11.09.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the application warrant investigation and unless an investigation is carried out, it would be difficult for the petitioner to obtain the sale deed and other documents from the custody of the bank authorities, through which the petitioner intends to establish the fraud allegedly committed against him.
5. Learned AGA submitted that the averments made in the complaint itself indicate that the entire transaction between the parties was concluded with the consent of the petitioner and there is no allegation disclosing any fraudulent activity on the part of the respondents.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Both the courts below have clearly recorded that the allegations made are of such a nature, the evidence of which can be adduced by the petitioner herself during the course of trial. One of the concerns raised by the petitioner is that she may be unable to produce the blank documents bearing his signatures and the sale deed, which are stated to be in the custody of the bank. However, the said concern does not appear to have merit. In this case the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated as a complaint case, at the stage contemplated under Section 246 Cr.P.C., and the proceedings would take the course of a State case and, if required, the trial court would be competent to summon the relevant documents from the bank authorities.
7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any perversity in the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court.
8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
March 31, 2026
Ujjawal
