Dismissed¶19

Rajendra Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2026CRLR/8052/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajendra Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. & 2 Others, CRLR No. 8052 of 2025, Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid J., decided January 29, 2026 — criminal revision dismissed against order dated 10.10.2025 of ACJM-I, Court No. 12, Jaunpur rejecting application under Section 173(4) BNSS for direction to register FIR for forgery/fraudulent revenue-record mutation (Misc. Case No. 236 of 2025, Rajendra Prasad Vs Haushila Prasad, P.S. Madiyahun); dispute held purely civil in nature; revenue entries rectifiable only by the competent court. Keywords: Section 173(4) BNSS; FIR direction; revenue records; civil dispute; forgery; Jaunpur; Madiyahun.

What did the court decide?

None; the criminal revision was dismissed and the trial court's order rejecting the complaint under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. stands. ¶19

Rajendra Prasad Mishra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8052 of 2025

¶2

Rajendra Prasad Mishra

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶6

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Sharad Chand Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

Case called out. Learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State are present. However, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 & 3 is not present.

¶9

Heard Sri Hasmat Ali Ansari, learned counsel appearing for revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

Under challenge is the impugned order dated 10.10.2025, passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Court no. 12, Jaunpur, in Misc. Case no. 236 of 2025 (Rajendra Prasad Vs Haushila Prasad) under section 173(4) B.N.S.S. Police Station Madiyahun, District-Jaunpur. It is further prayed this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to summon or direct the concern authority to lodge the First Information Report against the Respondent No 2, 3 and other persons, in Misc. Case no. 236 of 2025 (Rajendra Prasad Vs Haushila Prasad) under section 173(4) B.N.S.S. Police Station Madiyahun, District-Jaunpur.

¶11

Complainant/revisionist had filed an application under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S. before the learned trial court.

¶12

The contents of the complaint are that Vishwanath, father of the complainant had purchased the entire land bearing Area No. 940/1.42 decimal, situated at Village Sehra, Pargana and Tehsil Mariahu, District Jaunpur, through a registered sale deed from Banshi son of Mahadev. After the death of the complainant's father Vishwanath, became his sole legal heir. The complainant's co-sharers (pattidars) Hausila Prasad son of Late Kashinath and Hausila's son Rajkumar are highly fraudulent and deceitful persons. In conspiracy with the employees and officials of Tehsil Mariahu, and without any authority or any valid legal document, they dishonestly and by forging documents, with the intention to grab the aforesaid valuable and costly land belonging to his father under Area No. 940, got an order passed illegally and unlawfully for recording their names in the revenue records. By this act, irreparable loss has been caused to the complainant.The act

¶13

CRLR No. 8052 of 2025

¶14

¶15

committed by the above-named accused persons is of serious nature and constitutes a cognizable offence, committed in collusion with other unknown persons.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist/complainant that by adopting illegal means and by forging documents, opposite party nos. 2 & 3 unlawfully succeeded in getting an order passed for recording their names in the revenue records, thereby causing serious prejudice and irreparable loss to the revisionist/complainant. It is further contended that the acts committed by the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 are grave in nature and constitute cognizable offences, committed in collusion with other unknown persons. The allegations disclosed in the complaint clearly make out a prima facie case for criminal prosecution.

¶17

The learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 10.10.2025, rejecting the complaint by a speaking and reasoned order. As per the contents of the complaint, the matter is exclusively civil in nature and has been sought to be given the colour of criminality.

¶18

The entries in the revenue record, if any, could be rectified only by the competent court. The dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

¶19

In view of the above, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.

¶20

January 29, 2026

¶21

M. Tarik

¶22

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶23

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

Rajendra Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjay Tiwari vs State of Up and Another

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Amar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonveer Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dr Mohd Azeem Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Sangam Lal Aarak vs State of U.P. and Another