Rukmani Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rukmani Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the trial court's order dated 30.07.2025 rejecting the complainant's application for further investigation and order further investigation.

Court's answer

The Court found no merit in the application because the ground that the four advocates were not authorized to represent the complainant before the civil court has not been questioned in any manner, much less by moving any application before the civil court to apprise the misconduct of the plaintiff.

Ratio / Principle

A perusal of the impugned order showed that cognizance of the offence was taken by the Magistrate on 26.07.2024.

Key takeaways

Further proceedings before the trial court had been stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 bearing No.8473 of 2024.ratio¶15
The trial court has given valid reasons while dismissing the application filed by the applicant.ratio¶15
Finding no merit in the application, this Court was not inclined to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) — Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed (Manoj Bajaj, J., 08.10.2025). Applicant-informant Rukmani Singh sought setting aside of the order dated 30.07.2025 (Case No.763 of 2024, State Vs. Sukhmeena Singh and others, Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/IInd ACJM, Ayodhya) rejecting her application for further investigation in Case Crime No.291 of 2023 (Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC; charge-sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.) concerning alleged impersonation whereby four advocates — Ram Milan Shukla, Amit Shukla, Girijesh and R.N.Shukla — filed joint power of attorney for her in Civil Suit no.126 of 2011 (Civil Court, Faizabad) without ever being engaged, their Section 161 statements remaining unrecorded. Counsel conceded no application had been moved before the civil court challenging the advocates' authority. Cognizance stood taken on 26.07.2024 and trial proceedings stayed since 20.09.2024 (Criminal Misc. Application No.8473 of 2024); the trial court's reasons were held valid; inherent powers were declined and the application dismissed without expression of opinion on the merits.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7622 of 2025

Rukmani Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arpan Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 29

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Applicant-Rukmani Singh (informant) has filed this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in Case No.763 of 2024, titled State Vs. Sukhmeena Singh and others, by the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/IInd ACJM, Ayodhya, whereby the application by complainant seeking further investigation has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of the complaint by applicant/informant the prosecution of four accused persons, namely, Sukhmina Singh, Shyam Lal Singh, Girish Singh and Devesh Singh (opposite party nos.3 to 6) started with registration of Case Crime No.291 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. wherein the charge-sheet against the accused persons under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. stands filed. He submits that the opposite party no.1 is the sister of the applicant, who had filed Civil Suit no.126 of 2011 before the Civil Court, Faizabad, wherein four advocates, namely, Ram Milan Shukla, Amit Shukla, Girijesh and R.N.Shukla allegedly represented the applicant, but the said advocates were never engaged by the applicant. According to the learned counsel someone impersonating as Rukmani Singh engaged those counsels to help the plaintiff/opposite party no.3, therefore, the accused persons are being prosecuted for the alleged offence of cheating and fraud. Learned counsel has argued that though the investigation in the

A482 No. 7622 of 2025

2

case is complete as the charge-sheet has been filed but the statements of the four advocates, who had filed joint power of attorney on behalf of the applicant in the civil suit were not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, an application was moved before the trial court for conducting further investigation, but the same has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.07.2025. He prays that the impugned order be set-aside and further investigation be ordered.

During the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by learned counsel that after acquiring the knowledge of the alleged fraud committed before the civil court by the opposite party no.3 with the help of other accused persons, no application was moved by the applicant to apprise the civil court about the conduct of the plaintiff or anyone else.

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and considering the submissions, this Court does not find any merit in the application as the ground that the four advocates were not authorized to represent the complainant before the civil court has not been questioned in any manner, much less by moving any application before the civil court to apprise the misconduct of the plaintiff. Further a perusal of the impugned order would show that the cognizance of the offence was taken by the Magistrate on 26.07.2024, however, the further proceedings before the trial court had been stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 bearing No.8473 of 2024. The trial court has given valid reasons while dismissing the application filed by the applicant, therefore, finding no merit in the application, this Court not inclined to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

October 8, 2025

R./

Digitally signed by :- RAJEEV KUMAR SACHDEVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Rejection of the complainant's application seeking further investigation, passed in Case No.763 of 2024, titled State Vs. Sukhmeena Singh and others¶9
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/IInd ACJM, Ayodhya · 30.07.2025
Prior proceeding
On the complaint of the applicant/informant, prosecution of four accused persons began with registration of Case Crime No.291 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., and the charge-sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. stands filed against the accused persons.¶10
Prior proceeding
Opposite party no.1, the sister of the applicant, filed Civil Suit no.126 of 2011 before the Civil Court, Faizabad.¶10
Prior proceeding
Four advocates, Ram Milan Shukla, Amit Shukla, Girijesh and R.N.Shukla, allegedly represented the applicant in the civil suit although never engaged by her; someone impersonating as Rukmani Singh allegedly engaged them to help the plaintiff/opposite party no.3, prompting prosecution of the accused for cheating and fraud.¶10
Prior proceeding
Statements of the four advocates, who had filed joint power of attorney on behalf of the applicant in the civil suit, were not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation.¶13
Prior proceeding
An application was moved before the trial court for conducting further investigation, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 30.07.2025.¶13
Prior proceeding
Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Magistrate on 26.07.2024.¶15
Prior proceeding
Further proceedings before the trial court were stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 bearing No.8473 of 2024.¶15
Prior proceeding
During the hearing, learned counsel fairly stated that, despite acquiring knowledge of the alleged fraud committed before the civil court by opposite party no.3 with the help of other accused persons, no application was moved by the applicant to apprise the civil court about the conduct of the plaintiff or anyone else.¶14