##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15438 of 2025

Abdul Salman Khan And 2 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anjani Kumar, Gaurav Tiwari

Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 89

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prateek

Tyagi, learned AGA for State-respondent.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer

to issue a suitable order or direction to set aside the impugned

order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Additional District and

Sessions Judge/Fast Track (14th Finance Commission),

Varanasi, in Criminal Revision No. 276 of 2025 (Abdul

Salman Khan and others vs. State of U.P. and another), as well

as the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.

3/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in Complaint

Case No. 94612 of 2023 (Gayasuddin vs. Abdul Salman),

whereby the petitioners have been summoned under Sections

420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC, Police Station

Dashashwamegh, District Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a sale

deed was executed in favour of the petitioner's father on

23.3.1957. On the strength of the said sale deed, the petitioner

came into possession of the house and became its owner. The

respondent filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

alleging that the sale deed dated 23.3.1957 is forged and that

the petitioner, on the basis of the said sale deed, got his name

mutated in his favour. It was further alleged that the petitioner

is a tenant of the said house and is now claiming ownership on

the basis of the sale deed dated 23.3.1957. It was submitted that

the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was

A227 No. 15438 of 2025

2

converted into Complaint Case No.94612 of 2023 (Gayasuddin

vs. Abdul Salman). The statements of the complainant and his

witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.,

and the petitioner was summoned to face trial for offences

under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale deed executed

in favour of his father is of the year 1957 and bears the

signature of the Sub-Registrar, Varanasi. The respondent

produced a photostat copy of the sale deed by affixing the seal

of Sub-Registrar-II to create a false claim that the said sale

deed is forged. It was further submitted that the petitioner

sought information under the Right to Information Act and was

informed that no post of Sub-Registrar-II existed in the year

1957, and that the said post came into existence only after

1990. It was argued that the petitioner has been summoned on

the basis of false and baseless allegations, and there is no

material on record to show that the sale deed executed in the

year 1957 is forged. It was also submitted that the petitioner

had preferred Criminal Revision No.276 of 2025 (Abdul

Salman Khan and others vs. State of U.P. and another), which

was dismissed on 12.11.2025.

4. Sri Prateek Tyagi, learned AGA for the State-respondent,

submitted that the respondent has alleged in the complaint that

the petitioner got a forged sale deed executed in his favour in

respect of a house of which he is only a tenant.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order

passed by the learned Trial Court.

6. From the perusal of the application filed by the respondent

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was later converted into a

complaint, it appears that only a bald allegation has been made

against the petitioner that he forged a sale deed of the year

1957. No specific particulars have been disclosed from which it

can be inferred that the said sale deed is forged. A mere

allegation of forgery is not sufficient to constitute offences

under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC. A person

making such an allegation is required to disclose material

particulars on the basis of which the Court may arrive at a

prima facie conclusion t