Akhilesh Kumar ( Akhilsh Kumar Singh ) Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

Akhilesh Kumar ( Akhilsh Kumar Singh ) Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the revisionist, who is neither the owner nor in possession of the land in question and is merely a co-villager, is a person aggrieved with locus to maintain the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the present revision. +1 more

Court's answer

The revisionist is neither the owner nor in possession of the land in question (the parti bhumi) and is merely a co-villager.

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of any right, title, possession, or locus in respect of the said land, the revisionist cannot be said to be a person aggrieved so as to maintain the present proceedings.

Key takeaways

The learned trial court, after considering the material available on record, rightly rejected the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.ratio¶14
The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision dismissed. The revisionist challenged the order dated 16.12.2025 of the Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-III, Bhadohi, Gyanpur, in Criminal Case Misc. Case No. 1377 of 2023 (Akhilesh KUmar Vs. Upendra Singh), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Chauri, District Bhadohi, rejecting his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking a direction for registration of FIR and investigation. Held (Abdul Shahid, J.): the revisionist is neither the owner nor in possession of the land in question (parti bhumi) and is merely a co-villager; in the absence of any right, title, possession or locus, he is not a person aggrieved and cannot maintain the proceedings. The trial court, after considering the material on record, rightly rejected the application; the impugned order suffers from no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1625 of 2026

Akhilesh Kumar ( Akhilsh Kumar Singh )

.....Revisionist(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Akhilesh Kumar, Vishal Jaiswal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 87

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

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

The instant criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-III Bhadohi, Gyanpur, in Criminal Case Misc. Case No. 1377 of 2023 (Akhilesh KUmar Vs. Upendra Singh), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Chauri, District Bhadohi whereby the application of the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, whereby the application of the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected, is illegal and liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has erroneously rejected the application moved by the revisionist seeking a direction for registration of the FIR and investigation of the matter.

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the revisionist is neither the owner nor in possession of the land in question, i.e., the parti bhumi , and is merely a co-villager. In the absence of any right, title, possession, or locus in respect of the said land, the revisionist cannot be said to be a person aggrieved so as to maintain the present

CRLR No. 1625 of 2026

2

proceedings. The learned trial court, after considering the material available on record, has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the criminal revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly.

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

March 10, 2026

M. Tarik

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