HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Rajendra Chauhan And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Avanindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 9.12.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Pravar Khand), Fast Track Court/Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Case No. 22014 of 2025 (Dhurbhari Vs. Leelawati Devi and others), whereby the revisionists have been summoned to face trial under Section 342, 365, 420, 465, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned order dated 9.12.2025 has been passed without proper application of judicial mind. He further submits that the matter in dispute is purely of civil nature. There is sale deed already registered. It could not be believed that any registered sale deed could be executed in other place other than the Sub-Registrar office. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has also submitted that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed which after due process has been rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 24.1.2023. That order has been challenged before the revisional court and that revisional court has set aside the order dated 24.1.2023 and passed an order dated 20.11.2024 that the learned trial court had not given due attention to the police report dated 17.7.2022, Hence it was directed that in light of the observations made by the criminal revisional court, the complaint be decided after providing opportunity of hearing to the applicant.

5. Learned trial court had considered the issues and perused the statement recorded under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C, report of police station dated 17.7.2022. As per that police report, said fact came into knowledge that the land situated at Gram Pahnsa had came into ownership of the complainant upon death of his parents. As per the complaint, the opposite party Pappu, Subhash, Seraj and Ram Bachan met with the complainant at Kushinagar and they took him at Mau without his consent in Scorpio vehicle. Thereafter, he had been kept for one night on the tube-well of Ram Bachan and one day at the tube-well of Subhash and for two to three days near Fatima crossing situated at Vijay Plaza. In the registry office when the complainant has raised this objection that he had not get any amount of sale deed, then the Registrar refused to execute the registered sale deed. It is further alleged that thereafter, Subhash have given a cheque of Rs. 4 lacs to the complainant and thereafter the sale deed was executed. After execution of registered sale deed, Pappu, Subhash, Seraj and Ram Bachan met at Railway Station and there Pappu snatched that cheque from the complainant and torned the said cheque and threatened the revisionists.

6. Learned trial court has mentioned in his order that as per report, there has been no amount was credited in the account of the complainant, hence on the basis of complaint, the statement of complainant and supporting statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C and perusal of police report dated 17.7.2022, there has been prima facie case made out that the sale deed was executed without payment of amount. The entire genesis of taking away the complainant at different places and thereafter threatening and taking him to registry office for execution of sale deed is made out. When objection was raised by the complainant before the Registry office that he did not get any amount then the Sub-Registrar had refused to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, a cheque of an amount of Rs. 4 lacs has been given to him and the sale deed was executed, but said cheque was not honoured and no amount was credited on the basis of that said cheque in the account of