Application U/S 156(3) CrPC Can Be Dismissed If Complainant Lacks Locus Standi & Allegations Don't Constitute Cognizable Offence: Allahabad HC - 2025-07-08

Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea for FIR Against Dy CM Keshav Prasad Maurya , Cites Lack of Locus Standi and No Cognizable Offence

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking directions to register an FIR against Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya over allegations of using unrecognized and allegedly forged educational degrees in election affidavits and for obtaining a petrol pump.

The Court, while upholding a Magistrate's order, ruled that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute a cognizable offence. It emphasized that a non-recognized degree is not equivalent to a forged one and that the petitioner, a self-proclaimed RTI activist, lacked the locus standi to initiate criminal proceedings as he was not the "deceived party."

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by Diwakar Nath Tripathi . He alleged that Mr. Maurya had committed forgery and fraud by using educational degrees from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, in his election affidavits for the 2007, 2012, and 2014 elections. Tripathi claimed these degrees were not recognized as equivalent to High School or Intermediate qualifications by the state government.

He further alleged that Mr. Maurya used these "forged" documents to acquire a petrol pump from the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). After the Magistrate rejected his plea for an FIR, Tripathi filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Submissions:

* Cognizable Offence: Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that using unrecognized degrees and filing false affidavits constituted cognizable offences like forgery and cheating, necessitating a police investigation.

* Locus Standi: Citing A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak , it was argued that any citizen has the right to set criminal law in motion, especially when "personally hurt" by such alleged acts by a public figure.

* Evidence of Forgery: The petitioner claimed that an RTI inquiry revealed another person’s name ( Manju Singh ) registered against the same roll number attributed to one of Mr. Maurya 's degrees, proving forgery.

Respondents' Submissions: * No Criminal Intent (Mens Rea): The State's counsel argued that essential ingredients for cheating and forgery, such as fraudulent intent, were missing. Submitting a non-recognized degree is an administrative issue, not a criminal act of forgery.

* Limitation Bar: It was contended that allegations related to false election affidavits fall under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which has a one-year limitation period for prosecution under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The complaint, filed in 2021 for elections held up to 2014, was time-barred.

* Lack of Locus Standi: The respondents stressed that the petitioner was not the aggrieved party. The appropriate parties to file a complaint would have been the Election Commission or the Indian Oil Corporation, neither of whom did so.

Court's Analysis and Key Findings

The High Court conducted a detailed analysis of the law and facts, concurring with the Magistrate's decision to dismiss the application. The key findings were:

Non-Recognized is Not Forged: The Court drew a clear distinction between a document that is not recognized by a government body and one that is forged. It held: > "Any certificate being forged and any certificate not being recognised as equivalent to High School are two different things and will have different effect... If there is no forgery, the document cannot said to be a false document irrespective of the issue whether it is recognised under the law or not and this situation cannot lead to criminal action under the I.P.C."

Absence of Locus Standi: The Court found the petitioner's claim of being "personally hurt" as a "social worker" unconvincing and suggestive of oblique motives. It noted that the petitioner was not the person deceived and thus lacked the standing to file a complaint for cheating or forgery. > "The complainant-revisionist is not a person deceived by respondent no. 2, therefore, in view of Section 39 Cr.P.C, he had no locus to move an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction to register FIR regarding alleged offence of cheating and forgery..."

Magistrate's Discretion under 156(3) Cr.P.C.: The Court reaffirmed that a Magistrate's power to order an FIR is discretionary and must be exercised judicially, not mechanically. The Magistrate rightly concluded that the allegations were vague, lacked credibility, and did not disclose a cognizable offence requiring police investigation.

Malicious Intent: The Court observed that the proceedings appeared to be driven by malicious intent rather than public interest. > "The proceedings appear to be prima facie initiated maliciously by the revisionist with oblique motives with an intention to gain some advantage or to settle his score."

Final Decision

Concluding that the petition was without merit and an attempt to clog the justice system with a frivolous complaint, the High Court rejected the criminal revision. The Court affirmed that allowing such an application would amount to a "travesty of justice" and upheld the Magistrate's order dated September 4, 2021.