Dismissed¶18

Sarveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2026CRLR/810/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid, J., Criminal Revision No. 810 of 2026, decided February 4, 2026: revision against rejection of complaint under Section 226 BNSS by CJM, Farrukhabad dismissed; revenue-record mutation/correction dispute held purely civil, remedy lies before revenue authorities under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; forgery allegations, if any, to be pursued under Cr.P.C./BNSS; no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

The matter of entry in the revenue record is purely of civil nature and could be rectified by adopting the due procedure provided under the revenue laws. ¶17

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 810 of 2026

Sarveer Singh

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others	.....Opposite
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Mushir Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

¶10

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.11.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad in Complaint Case No. 15273 of 2025 (Sarveer Singh Vs. Shyamveer and others), under Section 226 of BNSS. By the said order, the complaint moved by the revisionist has been rejected.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that learned trial court has rejected the complaint of the revisionist without application of judicial mind. There has been forgery committed by the opposite parties. Shyamveer Singh has entered his name in the revenue record, whereas Shyamveer Singh son of Ausan Singh had rectified revenue record and he has been shown as son of Daryao Singh, whereas Daryao Singh is father of Ausan Singh.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the application had been filed by Shyam Singh alias Shyamveer on 25.5.2024 that in view of the order dated 6.2.2023 of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, in the aforesaid Aarazi, name of Shyamveer Singh alias Shyam Singh has to be mutated in the revenue record and the revenue record is to be corrected. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied on a report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad dated 25.10.2024 that in the file, name of the applicant is not mentioned, hence mutation is not possible in his name. After ignoring all these, name of Shyam Singh alias Shyamveer has been mutated in the revenue record.

¶13

Learned AGA has submitted that the dispute is of purely civil nature and the mutation, if any, and correction of wrong entry that has to be rectified by adopting appropriate procedure before the revenue court. He further relied that in Writ-C No. 3273 of 2023 (Shyam Singh @ Shyamveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) this Court had passed an order dated 6.2.2023, in which it is mentioned that considering

¶14

CRLR No. 810 of 2026

¶15

¶16

the rival submissions of the parties, the present writ petition is being disposed off granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer appropriate application in consonance with the provision contained under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before the second respondent, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, who shall either himself undertake exercise or authorize somebody else competent and empowered under the Code to consider the application of the writ petitioner for mutation as per the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code. Before embarking upon any exercise the third respondent or the officer concerned it shall be taken into account the fact as to whether the order dated 11.12.2012 passed in Writ-C No. 56768 of 2006 and Writ-B No. 21085 of 2012 is still intact or it has been subject matter of challenge before any competent court of law. The said exercise is to be completed within a period of three months from the production of certified copy of the order in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and of course subject to any legal impediment.

¶17

In view thereof, the matter of entry in the revenue record is purely of civil nature which could be rectified by adopting due procedure as provided under the revenue laws. If any crime or forgery has been committed with the court or before the court, then there is separate procedure provided under Cr.P.C. as well as under BNSS to initiate competent proceeding. The said complaint is not maintainable in view of the alternative and efficacious remedy available after considering the nature of the dispute. Hence there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 18.11.2025.

¶18

The present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

February 4, 2026 sfa/

¶20

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nekpal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Agrawal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Rajendra Singh Fauji and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Uttam vs State of Up and Another

Murari Shankar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others