Sharik Khan Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1812 of 2026

Sharik Khan

	Versus	.....Petiti	oner(s)
State Of U.P. And 15 Others		.....Respon	dent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Gopal Krishna Kushwaha	Pandey, Udai	Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A., Manu Khare
Court No.- 53

¶4

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶5

1. List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Gopal Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 16 and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner- Sharik Khan, with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No.540 of 2022 (Sharik Khan vs. Vijay Mehta & others) as well as impugned order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Criminal Case No.369 of 2018 (State vs. Rajiv Jain & others) in Case Crime No.354/2016, under sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, police station-Sadar Bazar, district-Saharanpur whereby discharged respondent No.2 to 16 from Criminal Case No.369 of 2018 (State vs. Rajiv Jain & others) in Case Crime No.354/2016, under sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, police station-Sadar Bazar, district-Saharanpur during the pendency of instant petition before this Hon'ble court so that the justice may be done; otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And / or pass such other order and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶8

The facts of the case are that the respondents were an accused in a matter in which at the stage of discharge an application for discharge was moved by them which was allowed vide order dated 09.11.2022 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharapur and they were discharged of the charges levelled against them in Case Crime No. 154 / 2016, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur. A revision was preferred against the said order by the petitioner which stood dismissed vide

¶9

A227 No. 1812 of 2026

¶10

2

¶11

judgement and order dated 26.09.2025.

¶12

A first information information report was lodged in the matter by the petitioner on 04.05.2016 against the accused alleging therein that Lal Chand father of the accused Ram Kumar had purchased 60 sq. yard of plot through two sale-deeds on 26.11.1959. After the death of Lal Chand his heirs executed a power of attorney in favour of Satendra Kumar Jain and Vijay Kumar Mehta on 21.06.2004 which was registered. On the basis of registered power of attorney the said property holders sold land measuting 432.96 sq meter apart from 60 sq. yard in favour of the accused.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the complainant in the aforesaid case. It is submitted that the trial court concerned while considering the discharge application of the accused has vide order dated 09.11.2022 allowed the same and discharged the accused by giving a finding that no offence is made out against the accused which is an incorrect appreciation of the same in as much as there are allegations levlled in the first information information report against the accused. It is submitted that identically the revisional court also vide its judgement and order dated 26.09.2025 dismissed the said revision by upholding the order of the trial court which is also against the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the petitioner being the complainant was not heard by the trial court. Whenever he contacted the office of the trial court it was informed that the file is not traceable. It is submitted that the revisional court although heard him but proper appreciation in the matter was not done and in a very routine manner the revision was dismissed. It is submitted that thus the petition be allowed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State has been heard.

¶15

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the trial court concerned in its order impugned dated 09.11.2022 has meticulously considered the facts of the case and the evidence collected during investigation. It then came to the conclusion that no offence whatsoever is made out against the accused and thus discharged them. A revision against the same also stood dismissed by the revisional court by a well reasoned and well considered judgement and order. Both the orders do no suffer from any irregularity or illegality.

¶16

The present petition is dismissed .

¶17

February 12, 2026 AS Rathore

¶18

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sharik Khan v. State of U.P. and 15 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharik Khan v. State of U.P. and 15 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

Asif and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Amandeep Pal @ Aman Pal vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sharik Khan vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Manjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others