HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Sonveer Singh .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is a social worker who filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the supporting affidavit was filed by Pankaj Kumar Singh, son of Sonveer Singh (the complainant). The revisionist, Sonveer Singh himself, did not file the supporting affidavit.

3. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the revisionist has no locus standi. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. The criminal revision is liable to be rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 is unjustifiable and a non-speaking order passed without application of judicial mind; hence, it is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that the estimate report signed by the Village Development Officer (VDO), Sri Chandra Prakash, as per the Right to Information Act (RTI) reply dated 31.05.2025, raises doubts, as at that time Sri Kuldeep Singh was posted as VDO.

5. The revisionist, upon learning about the alleged embezzlement in the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan, made a complaint to higher officials. On his complaint, an explanation was sought by the Chief Development Officer (CDO), Hathras. It is alleged that there was collusion with the VDO, who submitted an estimate report to the bank in which the cost was not properly reflected and the required details were not filled, only to mislead higher officials.

6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, directed submission of a report to the CDO, Hathras, during the proceedings, wherein another estimate report was submitted by the respondent before the CDO. The CDO submitted the said estimate report before the court, in which every column was filled.

7. At the time of final arguments on the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., three estimate reports were available before the court below; however, this fact was ignored by the court below. The application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was rejected on the ground that the signature of the Village Pradhan was made by the complainant himself. It remains unexplained how and under what circumstances a blank estimate report was placed before the higher authorities without filling in the columns, which creates serious doubt.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that, even if the allegation regarding the signature of the Pradhan having been made by the complainant is taken to be true (though not admitted), a handwriting expert's report was warranted. However, no such report was obtained by the court below. The application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. has been rejected solely on the basis of the report submitted by the opposite parties, allegedly to save themselves by misleading the court below.

9. It is further submitted that the matter of a forged signature requires proper investigation by the police, and the persons responsible are liable to be prosecuted. The alleged forgery is also reflected in the bill vouchers placed before the court below, which were not filled with the amount and GST, yet payments were made by the officials in collusion with the Pradhan.

10. The revisionist sought information under the R.T.I. Act regarding the date from which construction of the Gram Panchayat Sachivalaya commenced. In this regard, there are material contradictions: under the R.T.I., the date was given as 25.07.2021, whereas in the explanation it was stated as 15.05.2021. It is further stated that the V.D.O., Sasni, informed that on 02.03.2021 a letter was signed for the supply of construction material, whereas the si