Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ABDUL SHAHID
Chandraprakash Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of fir and background of dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments about the legitimacy of wills involved. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. legal standards for abuse of process and jurisdiction. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. pending civil suit impacts criminal proceedings. (Para 22) |
| 5. conclusion on discharge and costs. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, assisted by Sri Mayank Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.
2. This criminal revision is preferred against the order dated 6.1.2025, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First, Gorakhpur in Case No. 121071 of 2021 (State Vs. Chandra Prakash Yadav and others) arising out of case crime No. 375 of 2019, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur.
3. The brief contents of the case is that the First Information Report of the incident was lodged on 13.10.2019, at case crime No. 375 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The named persons in the FIR are (1) Ravindra Kumar Singh, (2) Arvi
Criminal proceedings cannot supersede pending civil matters; ongoing civil disputes should not be criminalized unless substantial evidence exists.
Criminal proceedings for forgery cannot proceed without challenging the validity of the disputed document in a competent civil court.
Filing simultaneous revisions in different courts on the same matter violates Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and constitutes misuse of legal process.
At the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court must proceed on the assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material to determin....
The public prosecutor must independently assess the legitimacy of withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C, ensuring it serves public justice.
Point of law : Applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are now coming in torrent and thus exercise of the powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and not in routine manner.
The need for a responsible invocation of the power u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the mandatory nature of Section 154(1) of the Code for registration of FIRs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
