Dhirendra Dutt Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9471 of 2025

Dhirendra Dutt Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 9 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anoop Vajpayee, Atul Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA for the State. In view of the proposed order, issuance of notice to opposite party nos.2 to 10 is dispensed with.

¶10

2. This application has been filed with the following main prayer:

¶11

"For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2025 passed by the Special Judge, P.C. Act, Court No.9/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.630 of 2023 "Dhirendra Dut Singh Versus State of U.P. and others" and impugned order dated 21.8.2023 passed by the Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. (A.P.), Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 1359 of 2016 "Dhirendra Singh Versus Nanhey Lal Kanaujiya and others" Under Section 190 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Thakurganj, District-Lucknow contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to the accompanying affidavit, in the interest of justice."

¶12

It is the case of the applicant that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.3 and her family members were making pressure upon the applicant to live in the house of his wife. The dispute arose between husband and wife and an FIR in Case Crime no.16 of 2004 under Section Section 498-A/342/323/506 I.P.C. and Section

¶13

A482 No. 9471 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Aliganj, District Lucknow was lodged by the wife and proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also filed by the wife. It has been submitted that opposite party no.3 also filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 6.7.2012 bearing Complaint Case No. 1429 of 2012 showing herself to be unemployed and housewife. It has come to the knowledge of the applicant that opposite party no.3 purchased a plot and it also came to his knowledge that the private opposite parties got registered a Society in the name of Chandra Janotthan Samiti in the year 2011 bearing Registration No. 178920111-2012, Document No.1-166143 on the basis of false, manipulated and forged documents. The opposite party no.2 is Manager, opposite party no.3 is Treasurer, opposite party no.4 is Secretary, and opposite party no.6 is Adhyaksh. Though the opposite party no.2 to 5 are resident of same address but they have submitted Voter Identity Card of different address. The applicant sent a legal notice through counsel against which the opposite party no.6,9,11 and 13 sent reply dated 21.6.2016 and in Para 3 of the said reply, it has been stated that at the time of registration of the society, the I.D. of Gaushala Road was lost due to which she submitted the I.D. of Indira Nagar on which address she lived on rent with her father.

¶16

It has been submitted that the aforesaid fact indicates that there is clear fraud and cheating committed by opposite parties and they have shown wrong address and IDs, therefore, the applicant filed complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. on 16.7.2016 against all the accused. The Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, CBI (AP), Lucknow passed an order on 21.8.2023 and has rejected the complaint with the observation that the statement under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and police report reveals that the accused have previously filed a case against the applicant under Sections 498A, 342, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. The court has wrongly observed that this fact may be brought to the knowledge of the society concerned and the relevant court by filing an appropriate application, and the complaint was dismissed by considering the police report as well as statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.. The applicant filed a criminal revision which was also dismissed.

¶17

After going through the record, I find that both the courts below have given categorical finding that no offence has been made out and in case any

¶18

A482 No. 9471 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

fraud has been committed, the same can be brought to the knowledge of the Sub Registrar. It has also been noted that if any such fraud and forgery has been committed, the same can be questioned before the competent court, but by filing complaint, the applicant has abused the process of the court.

¶21

After going through the record, I find that three cases have been instituted by opposite party no.3 as wife i.e. the case under the Dowry Prohibition Act, case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and a case under the Domestic Violence Act. The court has considered all these facts and thereafter it has found that the allegation levelled by the applicant is not sustainable and that is why summons have not been issued. In the case of Rikhab Birani vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025 SCCOnline 823 SC , the Supreme Court has observed that it is duty of the court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing process.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, the application is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed .

¶23

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶24

November 11, 2025

¶25

Sachin

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dhirendra Dutt Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Dutt Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sana Azam and 3 Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Balram Tiwari @ Shiv Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Ashish Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. and Another

Ghanshyam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko

Mohammad Hamid Ansari Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Neeraj Patel and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another