Dismissed¶19

Tilakram and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2026CRLR/2579/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.; Tilakram & 2 others v. State of U.P. & Anr.; CRLR No. 2579 of 2026; decided 05.05.2026; revision against rejection of discharge application dismissed at admission stage; two conflicting death certificates (14.09.2001 vs 15.07.2003); unregistered will-deed dated 03.04.2003; Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Case Crime No. 102 of 2016; P.S. Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar; Criminal Case No. 2235 of 2016; prior S.482 Cr.P.C. No. 1518 of 2017; genuineness of death certificates and date of death left for trial evidence; Mangla Prasad Singh (2012 0 Supreme(All)2331) and Mukul Agrawal (2020 0 AIR (SC) 1877) cited by counsel.

What did the court decide?

None; revision dismissed at the admission stage. ¶19

Tilakram and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2579 of 2026

¶2

Tilakram And 2 Others

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

V	ersus
State of U.P. and Another		.....O	pposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Vipin Kumar D	wivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Akhilesh Vishwakarma, Kumar Dubey	G.A.,	Kumar Rakesh

¶5

Court No. - 86

¶6

HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. on the point of admission.

¶8

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists against the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Case No. 2235 of 2016 (State Vs. Tilakram and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 102 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that in this case, the dispute is of purely civil nature regarding which there is litigation between the parties pending before the revenue court. There are two death certificates, one showing the date of death of the deceased as 15.07.2003 and another 14.09.2001. The willdeed in question is said to have been prepared on 03.04.2003. Further submitted that when an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1518 of 2017 was filed by the revisionists before this Court to quash the entire proceedings of the case due to abuse of process of the court that was disposed of with direction to the revisionists that they are to file an application for discharge before the learned trial court but learned trial court has not considered the material available on record and material collected

¶10

CRLR No. 2579 of 2026

¶11

¶12

during the course of the investigation but passed the order in question while dismissing the application for discharge. It is also submitted that the death certificate issued from the office of Registrar birth and death is genuine and death certificate issued from the Health Department is fabricated. The revenue authorities have also accepted the death certificate issued by the birth and death Registrar Office. In this way, no prima facie case is made out against the revisionists but this fact was not taken into consideration by the learned trial court while deciding the application for discharge, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and allow the revision while discharging the revisionists.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionists relied his argument on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mangla Prasad Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. 2012 0 Supreme(All)2331 that is related to the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Mukul Agrawal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 2020 0 AIR (SC) 1877 , this case is also related to application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings of the case.

¶14

Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, the dispute is related to immovable property between the real brothers that is based on fabrication of death certificate of the deceased and preparation of will-deed. Death of the deceased took place on 14.09.2001 and will-deed is said to have been executed on 03.04.2003. Another death certificate shows the date of death of deceased as 15.07.2003. At this stage, it cannot be decided as to which death certificate is genuine. If it is assumed that the deceased died on 14.09.2001 how can the will-deed be executed by the deceased on 03.04.2003. This fact can only be decided by the learned trial court after taking evidence on the part of the parties. At the stage of framing of charge, only prima facie case is to be seen. Even on grave suspicion charge can be framed as per settled law.

¶15

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶16

CRLR No. 2579 of 2026

¶17

¶18

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of record, the order passed by learned trial court dated 11.03.2026, it transpires that in the same case an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1518 of 2017 was filed in which remedy for quashing the entire proceedings of the case against the revisionists was refused and direction was given to the revisionists to file an application for discharge. In pursuance to which present application for discharge was filed by the revisionists before the learned trial court which was decided on 11.03.2026. It also transpires that there are two death certificates of the deceased, one showing the date of death of the deceased on 14.09.2001 and other showing the date of death as 15.07.2003. The unregistered will deed is said to have been executed by the deceased on 03.04.2003. At this stage, learned court cannot decide the fact as to which date of death of the deceased was correct and which certificate was genuine but it requires evidence to be taken on the part of both the parties which is possible during trial. In this way, there appears no any illegality and impropriety in the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by learned trial court but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

¶19

Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed .

¶20

May 5, 2026 Anurag Singh

¶21

(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tilakram and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilakram and 2 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustakeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashank Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Smt Pooja Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Haneef and Others Vs State of U.P.

Viri Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others