Uday Bhan Arya vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2991 of 2026

Uday Bhan Arya

.....Petitioner(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)		: Satyawan Shahi
Counsel for Respondent(s)		: G.A.
Court No.- 53

¶5

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Satyawan Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Uday Bhan Arya with the prayers to quash the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Basti and order dated 15.05.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basti/Special Judge (Essential Commodities), Basti and with a further prayer to direct the respondent no.8 to register the FIR against the opposite parties no. 2 to 7.

¶9

The facts of the case are that an application dated 18.01.2023 was filed by the petitioner against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 alleging therein that in the election of General Body of Arya Samaj Gandhi Nagar, Basti, Radhey Shyam Singh, Satyendra Verma, Haripati Pandey, Brij Kishore, Vinay Pranacharya and other unknown persons with an intention to commit cheating and fraud on 07.08.2021 got a meeting conveyed by Murlidhar Bharti without the permission of its President and an agenda was issued and a message was passed that on 08.08.2021 an emergent meeting is called. On 08.08.2021 a forged meeting was done in which the President was not present and 22.08.2021 was posted as the date for election and the accused on 11.08.2021 by committing forgery and cheating forged documents prepared its documents and showed a false observer whereas the signature in the same was of the person who was neither a member nor competent to hold the post of President and in a secretive manner by concealing, committing forgery and cheating proceeded in its which is a serious offence. Against the said order dated 02.11.2019 of the Deputy Registrar Firm and Societies a writ was preferred before the Lucknow Bench of this Court which was dismissed on 07.06.2021. Vinay Pranacharaya through a forged letter dated 11.08.2021 neither showed it to him nor gave a copy of it to him and even

¶10

A227 No. 2991 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

did not talk about the election whereas he was in the knowledge of the fact that he is the President of the society. The complainant in the capacity of being a President called Murlidhar Bharti on 17.08.2021 and cancelled general meeting on 22.08.2021 but still the accused showing him to be absent and preparing forged papers and causing loss to the Arya Samaj Elected its office bearers. It is further alleged that the complainant gave an application to the Superintendent of Police, Basti through post on 02.01.2023 for lodging a report but no FIR was lodged. He is thus moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the prayers that a direction be issued to the concerned police station to lodge a report and investigate the same.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there has been a serious forgery cheating and preparation of a forged documents. It is submitted that the court concerned committed an error. The application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to order dated 15.05.2018 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/s 482 No. 2398 of 2018 (Pankaj Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. and another) and submitted that in an identical dispute, this Court had refused to interfere in a matter where it was pleaded that the same is a civil dispute. It is further submitted that the case where the allegations make out a criminal offence can be tried despite the fact that there is a civil consequence of the same. It is submitted that there is a serious allegation against the accused and the court concerned has failed to appreciate the same and has rejected application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the petitioner vide order dated 25.10.2024. It is submitted that even the revisional court vide its judgment and order dated 15.05.2025 has failed to appreciate the same and has dismissed the revision.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. suffers from an inherent illegality inasmuch as no effort was made by the petitioner who is the alleged complainant by approaching the concerned police station for lodging of a First Information Report. There is no averment with regards to the same. It is submitted that the complainant at the first instance approached the Superintendent of Police concerned by post as per his own averment. It is submitted that the same does not qualify with the requirement of law. It is further submitted that the present dispute is a purely civil dispute and the trial court concerned has considered the same in detail and has opined that the dispute is purely civil in nature and appropriate remedy in the matter was before the Deputy Registrar Firm Society and Chits. It is submitted that the view taken by the trial court is not in any manner perverse or illegal. It is further submitted that even the revisional court did not exceed in its jurisdiction and commit an illegal or in dismissing the revision.

¶15

A227 No. 2991 of 2026

¶16

3

¶17

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that apart from the using the words has to be in the sequence as stated to be an offence against the accused. The averments necessary for making out the allegations are missing. Further the complainant has not approached the concerned police station for lodging of a First Information Report. The same cannot be permitted as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Singh Bath Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh : Criminal Appeal No. 4313 of 2024 , decided on 06.03.2025. Further the dispute is between two groups with regards to the election and selection of General Body of Arya Samaj, if there were any grievance with regards to the alleged election the remedy would have been civil in nature before the appropriate forum.

¶18

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no ground to interfere in the matter and is dismissed .

¶19

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶21

March 11, 2026 M. ARIF

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Uday Bhan Arya v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Bhan Arya v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Similar cases

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

Vikash Mishra and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Jain Vs Union of India and Another

Kuldeep Baghel vs State of Up and Another

Ram Nazar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Aastha Sharma Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and 3 Others