Vinod Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 819 of 2026

¶3

Vinod Pratap Singh

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

		Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others			....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	:	Keshawa Prasad Chandra Pandey	Pandey,	Krishna
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶6

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶8

The revisionist filed a complaint under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. on 04.01.2025, which was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, vide the impugned order dated 24.11.2025.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the applicant/complainant/revisionist is a third party and a whistleblower who filed a complaint against opposite parties for malfunctioning. He further submitted that opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have committed offences. Opposite party no. 2, Ram Nagina, is Gram Rojgar Sewak, Gram Panchayat Bhavanigada, Thana Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar. Opposite party no. 3, Kshitij Chaudhary, is Gram Panchayat Adhikari of the same Gram Panchayat. Opposite party no. 4, Rajendra Prasad Yadav, is the Ex-Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhavanigada. Opposite party no. 5, Anand Kumar Gupta, is the Khand Vikas Adhikari, Vikas Khand Bagholi, Police Station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶10

As per the contents of the complaint, Ram Nagina was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sewak on 18.06.2008. Thereafter, without obtaining prior permission, he completed B.Ed. training through a regular course from Ratansen Mahavidyalaya, Bansi, District Siddharthnagar. In this regard, the revisionist filed a complaint dated 22.03.2024 before the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. The matter was examined by the competent authority, and it was found that he had not obtained any NOC from the department. Directions were issued to the concerned Gram Panchayat to take appropriate action.

¶11

It is further alleged that thereafter fabricated documents were prepared to save his skin him from investigation, and the then Gram Pradhan was also involved in the said offence. The revisionist filed another application

¶12

CRLR No. 819 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

on 06.10.2024 on the portal of the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, which was disposed of by the Khand Vikas Adhikari, Baghauli, vide letter dated 21.10.2024. Thereafter, vide letter dated 19.10.2024, the Mukhya Vikas Adhikari, Sant Kabir Nagar, after obtaining legal opinion from the District Government Counsel, issued instructions, and proceedings in the matter are continuing.

¶15

It is further submitted that a letter dated 28.10.2024 from Umesh Chandra, Gram Pradhan, was received by the revisionist on 29.10.2024. Upon perusal, it appears that in the Gram Panchayat meeting dated 20.08.2024, the Gram Pradhan did not participate, and the proceedings dated 20.08.2024 were rejected and signed by him. It is alleged that the same was done on the basis of false and fabricated documents, and that the Khand Vikas Adhikari was fully involved and guilty in the matter.

¶16

It is also alleged that the honorarium received by the Rojgar Sewak for the period during which he was discharging his duties and simultaneously completing B.Ed. training through a regular course constitutes a criminal offence. The preparation of fabricated documents also falls within the ambit of criminality. On this basis, the complainant submitted various complaints to the highest authorities of the country. He further submitted that he filed an application dated 04.01.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, Sant Kabir Nagar, but no FIR was lodged.

¶17

The application of the revisionist has been rejected by the learned trial court by a detailed order. The complaints made by the complainant before the competent authorities are sufficient for taking appropriate action, if any, in accordance with law. The applicant/revisionist is admittedly a third party. The learned trial court has specifically observed that there is no order of any competent authority declaring the appointment of Ram Nagina as void or illegal on the basis of the alleged fabricated documents.

¶18