Dismissed¶14

Gaurav Bharadwaj v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2026CRLR/1165/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Criminal Revision No. 1165 of 2026; Gaurav Bharadwaj v. State of U.P. and 2 Others; Abdul Shahid, J.; decided 16.02.2026; rejection of complaint upheld; allegation of forgery of signature of Late Jagdish Prasad Bhardwaj; benefits obtained from Bar Association, Aligarh; family dispute; personal enmity; Judicial Magistrate Court No. 02, Aligarh; Complaint No. 1163 of 2023; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was passed by the learned trial court after due consideration of the material on record and does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. ¶11

Gaurav Bharadwaj vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1165 of 2026

¶3

Gaurav Bharadwaj

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Himanshu Shandilya	Mishra,	Priyadarshini
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

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

¶8

The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 02, Aligarh, whereby Complaint No. 1163 of 2023 ( Gaurav versus Priyanka Bhardwaj and Others ), Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh, has been rejected.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that opposite party no. 2/Smt. Priyanka Bhardwaj, forged the signature of Late Jagdish Prasad Bhardwaj, who was also the father of the revisionist. It has further been submitted that, on the basis of the said document, opposite party no. 2 obtained certain benefits from the Bar Association, Aligarh. It is contended that the document in question is forged and fabricated and that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the complaint.

¶10

The learned trial court has specifically held that the dispute between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 appears to be purely a family dispute and the complaint has been filed due to personal enmity. There shall not be hot and cold together. Since the revisionist himself had taken advantage of the said document, he cannot now question its authenticity.

¶11

In view of the above, the impugned order has been passed by the learned trial court after due consideration of the material on record. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

¶12

CRLR No. 1165 of 2026

¶13

¶14