Dismissed¶14

Shri Nath Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026A227/6338/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; Section 340 Cr.P.C.; forged compromise deed; fabrication and forgery of documents in judicial proceedings; signature forgery; refusal to direct registration of FIR; criminal revision dismissed; appropriate remedy for forged documents; Shri Nath Gupta v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; Article 227; Prayagraj; Special Chief Judicial Magistrate; Additional Special Judge (POCSO); Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC; 2025.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.03.2024 of the learned CJM, Prayagraj records a finding that the disputed question relating to alleged forged signatures on the compromise deed can appropriately be adjudicated by the court where the civil proceedings are pending, and that finding does not suffer from any infirmity. ¶12

Shri Nath Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 20.03.2024 of the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the order dated 20.01.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Additional Special Judge (POCSO), Prayagraj, are liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Where allegations pertain to fabrication or use of forged documents in judicial proceedings, the appropriate remedy lies under Section 340 Cr.P.C., and not by way of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶13

Key takeaways

Both the impugned orders are upheld and the present petition is dismissed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Art. 227) — Petition seeking setting aside of (i) order dated 20.03.2024 of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to register an FIR alleging that the respondents fabricated a forged compromise and filed it in a civil case pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC, the signatures on the compromise deed being allegedly forged, and (ii) order dated 20.01.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge/Additional Special Judge (POCSO), Prayagraj dismissing Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2024 — Held: (a) the Magistrate's finding that the disputed question of alleged forged signatures can appropriately be adjudicated by the court where the civil proceedings are pending suffers no infirmity; (b) where allegations pertain to fabrication or use of forged documents in judicial proceedings, the appropriate remedy lies under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and not by way of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. — Both impugned orders upheld; petition dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6338 of 2025

¶2

Shri Nath Gupta

¶3

.....Petitioner(s)

¶4

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others			.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashutosh Dwivedi	Dwivedi,	Suresh Chandra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 89

¶6

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Vinay Kumar, holding brief of Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State are present.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the order dated 20.01.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2024 (Shri Nath Gupta versus State of U.P. and others) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Judge (POCSO) Room No.2, Prayagraj and order dated 20.03.2024 rejecting petitioner application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Special CJM, Prayagraj, seeking a direction for registration of an FIR against the respondents, alleging that they had fabricated a forged compromise and filed the same in a civil case pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC. It was submitted that the signatures on the alleged compromise deed were not those of the petitioner and had been forged by the respondents. However, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.03.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2024 (Shri Nath Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others), which too was dismissed on 20.01.2025. Learned counsel submitted that both the courts below failed to properly consider the allegations made by the petitioner. It was further submitted that fabrication and forgery of documents constitute serious offences and ought to have been duly examined by the courts below. Hence, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

¶10

A227 No. 6338 of 2025

¶11

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned CJM, Prayagraj, records a finding that the disputed question relating to alleged forged signatures on the compromise deed can appropriately be adjudicated by the court where the civil proceedings are pending. The said finding does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶13

It is well settled that where allegations pertain to fabrication or use of forged documents in judicial proceedings, the appropriate remedy lies under Section 340 Cr.P.C., and not by way of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶14

Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld. The present petition is dismissed.

¶15

May 5, 2026 Ujjawal

¶16

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shri Nath Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Nath Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Similar cases

Asutosh Pachauri vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar @ Pavan Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajeev Agrawal vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Neeraj Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anuradha and Another Vs Ajay Kumar