Dismissed¶20

Srikant Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2026A482/5716/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition dismissed; rejection of discharge application upheld; prima facie case test for discharge; Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. cheating/forgery; forged and fabricated Will deed; mutation of name in revenue records; Arazi No. 104 (Village Kundaha, Tehsil Machhlishar, District Jaunpur), Arazi Nos. 414 and 526 (Village Bichhur, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh); Case Crime No.583 of 2014; Crl. Case No.369 of 2020; earlier 482 application No. 12725 of 2020 disposed 16.09.2020 with liberty to seek discharge; no illegality or perversity in Magistrate's order dated 02.11.2020.

What did the court decide?

None; the prayer for setting aside the impugned order was refused. ¶20

Srikant Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5716 of 2021

¶3

Srikant Pandey	.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Sandeep Kumar Pandey : G.A., Satish Chandra Dubey

¶4

Court No. - 79

¶5

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Satish Chandra Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Durgesh Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 02.11.2020 passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Jaunpur as well as entire proceeding of Crl. Case No.369 of 2020 (State vs. Srikant Pandey) arising out of Case Crime No.583 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Sujanganj, District Jaunpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to property dispute between the parties. The applicant is aged about 72 years and he is suffering from old age ailments. He further submitted that the opposite party No.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which a First Information Report was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons as Case Crime No.583 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Sujanganj, District Jaunpur with the allegations that the applicant in collusion with other co-accused persons, prepared a forged and fabricated Will deed in his favour and, on that basis, got his name mutated in the revenue records pertaining to Arazi No. 104 (area 0.081 hectare), situated at Village Kundaha, Tehsil Machhlishar, District Jaunpur, as well as Arazi No. 414 (area 0.3870 hectare) and Arazi No. 526 (area 0.711 hectare), situated at Village Bichhur, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. During the course

¶9

A482 No. 5716 of 2021

¶10

¶11

of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses, namely, Vijay Kumar, Mata Prasad, Uma Dutt Pandey, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the opposite party No. 2 supported the prosecution case, whereas the other witnesses did not support the allegations as levelled by the opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted that after investigation, the Investigating Officer exonerated the other coaccused persons and submitted a charge sheet only against the present applicant.

¶12

Learned counsel for applicant further submits that the applicant had earlier filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 12725 of 2020 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.09.2020 granting liberty to the applicant to file a discharge application before the trial court. Pursuant thereto, the applicant filed a discharge application before the learned Magistrate, however, the same has been rejected without due consideration of the material on record and passed the impugned order in routine and mechanical manner. The impugned order dated 02.11.2020 is arbitrary, erroneous, and contrary to the settled principles of law, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and contended that the applicant in collusion with other coaccused persons, prepared a forged and fabricated Will deed in his favour. It is further submitted that on the basis of the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the opposite party No. 2, the aforesaid FIR was registered. They further submit that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Magistrate strictly in accordance with law. The charge sheet has been filed after due investigation and the material collected therein clearly discloses the commission of offences against the applicants. There is no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

From the record, it transpires that the opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the applicant, along with other co-accused persons, prepared a forged and fabricated Will deed and, on that basis, the applicant got his name mutated in the revenue

¶15

A482 No. 5716 of 2021

¶16

¶17

records relating to the aforesaid land. Pursuant thereto, the FIR was registered as Case Crime No.583 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Sujanganj, District Jaunpur. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the opposite party No. 2 and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. was submitted against the applicant. The applicant thereafter filed a discharge application before the trial court, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 02.11.2020 on the ground that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

¶18

It is a settled principle of law that while considering a discharge application, the Court is required to form an opinion as to whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. If the Court finds that a prima facie case exists against the accused, the discharge application is liable to be rejected and charges are to be framed accordingly. In the present case, the discharge application has been rightly rejected.

¶19

Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate has proceeded in accordance with law. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the prayer for setting aside the same is hereby refused.

¶20

Accordingly, the application is dismissed .

¶21

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶22

April 28, 2026 Md Faisal

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Srikant Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srikant Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surya Bhan Giri and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adil and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajveer and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Samsad Husain and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharad Rai Alias Sharad Kumar Singh Rai and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajveer and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another