Dismissed¶14

Rajkumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2025CRLR/6982/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision 6982 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Court No. 91; Abdul Shahid J.; Rajkumar; State of U.P. and 6 others; Sanni Pratap Singh; Mayank Prakash Rawat; Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra; complaint case no. 20311 of 2025; impugned order dated 15.09.2025; Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; registered sale deed; undivided share; ancestral property; civil dispute converted into criminal offence; Police Commissioner Agra; speed post report 06.08.2025; information 02.01.2025; no criminal offence made out; revision dismissed 06.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

It appeared to the court that no criminal offence is made out against the revisionist at this stage, and that the civil dispute is being tried to be converted into a criminal offence. ¶10

Rajkumar vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether any criminal offence is made out at this stage, or whether the matter concerning execution of registered sale deeds of undivided shares is a purely civil dispute being converted into a criminal offence. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

It appeared to the court that no criminal offence is made out against the revisionist at this stage, and that the civil dispute is being tried to be converted into a criminal offence.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in complaint case no. 20311 of 2025 (Rajkumar vs. Sanni Pratap Singh and others).

¶10

Key takeaways

The criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 6982 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Abdul Shahid, J.), decided 06.11.2025 — DISMISSED. Revisionist Rajkumar challenged the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in complaint case no. 20311 of 2025 (Rajkumar vs. Sanni Pratap Singh and others). His counsel argued that the accused persons, being family members and a purchaser, colluded to execute registered sale deeds of undivided ancestral property, including a deed transferring the revisionist's own share; the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. recorded that the revisionist learnt of the transaction on 02.01.2025, obtained a certified copy of the sale deed, and sent a written report to the Police Commissioner, Agra by speed post on 06.08.2025, within seven months of the incident; and that the matter was a purely civil dispute sought to be converted into a criminal offence. The Court held that no criminal offence is made out against the revisionist at this stage, found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, and dismissed the criminal revision as devoid of merit. Court No. 91.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6982 of 2025

¶3

Rajkumar

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) :	Mayank Prakash Rawat
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 91

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

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

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that his property is ancestral property. The accused persons are family members and purchaser of the said property. They had executed the registered sale deed of the undivided share. It is also submitted that the share of the revisionist was also transferred by way of the registered sale deed. In his complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. it has been mentioned in paragraph no. -7 that he had got information on 02.01.2025 thereafter he obtained the certified copy of the sale deed, then he sent written report to the Police Commissioner, Agra by way of speed post on 06.08.2025 within 7 months' of the incident. The issues in the complaint are that the accused persons with the collusion of each other got executed registered sale deed. The second issue is that the sale deed of the undivided share was also executed. All these are purely civil dispute and it has been tried to convert a civil matter into criminal offence.

¶10

It appears that no criminal offence is made out against the revisionist at this stage. It appears that the civil dispute is being tried to convert into criminal offence. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in complaint case no. 20311 of 2025, Rajkumar Vs. Sanni Pratap Singh and others. The revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

CRLR No. 6982 of 2025

¶12

¶13

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶14