Dismissed¶16

Nirmal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. to the Govt. Deptt. of Home, Lko. U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2025A482/360/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Forged will deed; usurpation of property and bank withdrawal; Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application rejected; Section 482 Cr.P.C. application dismissed; civil dispute given criminal colour; ancestral property; Complaint No.1605 of 2023 (Nirmal Singh vs. Pragat Singh); Criminal Revision No.521 of 2023; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow; Hardeep Singh; Pragat Singh; Nirmal Singh; State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:3017; decided 17.1.2025.

What did the court decide?

The pleadings in the application do not make it clear whether the will deed in question has been assailed before any court of law, and learned counsel appearing for the applicant was not in a position to give any reply on this point. ¶14

Nirmal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. to the Govt. Deptt. of Home, Lko. U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the applicant's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the dismissal of Criminal Revision No.521 of 2023 suffer from any illegality, the applicant alleging that Pragat Singh forged the will of late Hardeep Singh and usurped his property. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The dispute primarily is of civil in nature and there appears to be no illegality in the orders impugned.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; Order Date 17.1.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:3017) dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Application U/S 482 No. 360 of 2025) by Nirmal Singh challenging the rejection of his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (order dated 24.7.2024, referred to elsewhere in the judgment as dated 24.7.2023) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow (printed as 'Lucinow'), and the consequential revisional order dated 30.7.2024 in Criminal Revision No.521 of 2023. The applicant had alleged that Pragat Singh, real uncle of late Hardeep Singh (who was issueless and, it was submitted, suffering from cancer), forged a will deed to usurp the deceased's property and withdrew amounts from his bank account; pursuant thereto the applicant had filed Complaint No.1605 of 2023, Nirmal Singh vs. Pragat Singh. The court below had rejected the Section 156(3) application observing that there was no document on record showing that Hardeep Singh suffered from cancer and that the matter prima facie appeared to be a civil dispute over ancestral property sought to be given a criminal colour. Before the High Court, the pleadings did not clarify whether the will deed had been assailed before any court of law and counsel was unable to answer this point; the Court held that the dispute primarily is of civil in nature and that there was no illegality in the orders impugned, and dismissed the application as devoid of merit.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3017

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 360 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Nirmal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. To The Govt. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar(Trivedi) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for respondent State.

¶7

Notices to respondent nos.2 to 5 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶8

By this application the applicant has challenged the impugned rejection order dated 24.7.2024 passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucinow as well as consequential revisional oder dated 30.7.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.521 of 2023.

¶9

It is submitted that late Hardeep Singh and Pragat Singh are real uncle of the applicant. Late Hardeep Singh was issueless and inorder to usurp his property, forged will deed has been made by Pragat Singh. The amount in his bank has been withdrawn as well as property has also been usurped. He submits that late Hardeep Singh was suffering from cancer.

¶10

Perused the record.

¶11

Perusal of the record shows that the deceased Hardeep Singh has bequeathed his property in favour of the Pragat Singh. Aggrived by that, the applicatnt has filed a complaint bearing Complaint No.1605 of 2023, Nirmal Singh vs. Pragat Singh.

¶12

Learned court below vide impugned order dated 24.7.2023 has duly considered the submissions made on behalf of the complainant and has observed that on the

¶13

record there is no such document which shows that Hardeep Singh was suffering from cancer. He was of the view that prima facie the matter appears to be a civil dispute between the ancestral property and is of civil in nature. It is tried to be given a criminal colour and thus, the application under Seciton 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected. Consequently, the revisional court has also dismissed the revision.

¶14

Perusal of the pleadings made in this application also do not make it clear that whether the will deed in question has been assailed before any court of law or not. Neither learned counsel appearing for the applicant is in a position to give any reply on this point.

¶15

Perusal of the impugned order dated 24.7.2023 appears that the dispute primarily is of civil in nature and there appears to be no illegality in the orders impugned.

¶16

The application, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.1.2025

¶18

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nirmal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. to the Govt. Deptt. of Home, Lko. U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. to the Govt. Deptt. of Home, Lko. U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Avadhram Shukla and 3 Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishnendra Bajpai and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ravikant Pandey Thru. His Father Shashikant Pandey Vs Smt. Neha Pandey

Shivnath Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Dayaram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Durgesh @ Durgesh Dixit and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another