Rajeev Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Kumar 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 prayers :-

"a. to issue a suitable order or direction to set aside the impugned order dt. 30.5.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar in Complaint Case No. 19408 of 2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Kamal and others, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint of petitioner as well as impugned order dt. 14.2.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 4, Bulandshahar in Criminal Revision No. 228 of 2024 Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, by which the learned lower Revisional Court dismissed the Criminal Revision of petitioner and affirmed the impugned order dt. 30.5.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar;

b. to issue a suitable order or direction commanding the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar to hear the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in Complaint Case No. 19408 of 2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Kamal and others."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of petitioner late Radhey Lal @ Radhey Shyam was adopted by one Sardar Singh in his childhood. The father of petitioner took care of Sardar Singh after being adopted and even performed his last rites after his death. The fact that father of petitioner was adopted by late Sardar Singh was accepted by Jagvati, daughter of Sardar Singh, during proceeding in a court. However, Kamal and Vinay, both sons of Jagvati, fabricated forged death certificate of Sardar Sigh and tried to misuse it in revenue proceedings in order to claim themselves as legal heirs of Sardar Singh. Even an attempt to take illegal possession of the house of the petitioner on the strength of forged death certificate was also made by respondent nos.2 and 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was converted into Complaint Case No. 19408 of 2023 (Rajeev Kumar Vs. Kamal and others) and the said complaint was dismissed on 30.5.2024. Learned counsel submitted that a report was called by the concerned trial court at the time of filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. from the concerned Police Station. The said police report clearly mentions that certain dispute between the petitioner and the respondents pertaining to ancestral house is pending and he has alleged that private respondents had executed a sale-deed on basis of the said forged death certificate. It has also been mentioned by the Sub-Inspector of concerned Police Station that upon verification of the death certificate from Nagar Panchayat, it came to the knowledge that the said death certificate was forged. Learned counsel submitted that despite such cogent report submitted by the concerned Police Station after verifying the allegations, his complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 30.5.2024.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 30.5.2024, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 228 of 2024 (Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), which too was dismissed on 14.2.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both courts have ignored to consider that alleged death certificate claimed by the respondents was a forged certificate which also finds corroboration from the police report submitted during pendency of his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that both orders are patently illegal and are liable to be set aside.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. It is very much apparent from the perusal of the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that the alleged forged death certificate is a matter of dispute between the parties since 1999 at the time of consolidation proceedings. Even the said death certificate has been challenged in certain other civil proceedings. Therefore, the finding recorded by the concerned trial court that genuineness of the said death certificate can only be adjudicated by the concerned court before whom the litigations are pending, is in accordance with law. The allegations raised by the petitioner pertain to year 1999 and hence when said disputed death certificate is under challenge in various litigations, then initiating criminal proceeding upon the basis of mere allegations is not proper.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is dismissed. The impugned order 30.5.2024 passed by the trail court as well as the order dated 14.2.2025 passed by the revisional court are upheld.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

May 6, 2026

SK