Surendra Prasad Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Surendra Prasad Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal revision admitted; notice to be issued to respondent no. 2 through the CJM concerned; steps within a week; matter listed on 26.02.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the revisionist's criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 438/442 BNSS, contesting the rejection of his discharge application, merits consideration by this Court.

Court's answer

Finding the matter to require consideration, the Court admitted the criminal revision challenging the rejection of the discharge application.

Ratio / Principle

Notice was ordered to be issued to respondent no. 2, to be served through the CJM concerned, with steps to be taken within a week and the matter listed for 26.02.2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 57 of 2026 (CRLR), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 27), decided January 20, 2026, by Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J. — Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. and 438 read with Section 442 BNSS by Surendra Prasad Srivastava against the State of U.P. (through Secretary, Home, Lucknow) and another, challenging the order dated 27-11-2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 20, Sultanpur, rejecting his discharge application in Criminal Case No. 177/2025 arising from Case Crime No. 1171/2007 (Sections 419,420,467,468,471 IPC; Section 319(2),318(4),338, 336(3), 340(2) BNSS), P.S. Amethi, District Amethi. Counsel submitted that the revisionist, formerly Lekhpal of the halka, allegedly issued a wrong status certificate to the undue advantage of the main accused Raj Kumar son of Ram Raj, although the informant had in 2004 added his nickname 'Ajeet Singh' to the revenue record via the SDM, Amethi; the revisionist was unnamed in the FIR and was arraigned through a supplementary chargesheet. Holding that the matter required consideration, the Court admitted the revision, ordered notice to respondent no. 2 through the CJM concerned, steps within a week, and listed the matter for 26.02.2026. No precedent was cited; no substantive ruling on merits was made at this admission stage.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 57 of 2026

Surendra Prasad Srivastava

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Suresh Chandra Srivastava, Savita Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 27

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

The instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C./438 read with Section 442 BNSS, against the order dated 27-11-2025, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no 20, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No. 177/2025, Case Crime No 1171/2007, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 IPC (Section 319(2),318(4),338, 336(3), 340(2) BNSS), Police Station - Amethi, District - Amethi by which learned trial judge had rejected the discharge application of the revisionist.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the main allegation against the revisionist is that he had issued wrong status certificate, knowing the fact that in the village two persons including informant having same name and parentage ( fathers name) . According to the informant, he had got his nick name Ajeet Singh added in revenue record in the year 2004 by moving application before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amethi to avoid any misuse of name between the informant and the main accused. He next submitted that the allegation against the revisionist is that he was posted at Lekhpal of Halka in which the village of the informant and main accused situate. He was well aware about both of them but he had given false report by getting misleading copies prepared for issuance of status certificate to extend undue advantage to the main accused Raj Kumar son of Ram Raj .He next submitted that he is not named in the FIR as his name surfaced during investigation and supplementary chargesheet has been filed against him. He was not personally acquainted with the informant and the main accused. He has not prepared any forged documents or extend any undue benefit to the main accused.

The matter requires consideration.

Admit.

CRLR No. 57 of 2026

2

Issue notice to respondent no.2 which shall be served through CJM concerned.

Steps be taken within a week.

List on 26.02.2026.

January 20, 2026 dk/

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench