Dismissed¶20

Rajendra Chauhan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2026CRLR/918/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; CRLR/Criminal Revision No. 918 of 2026; Abdul Shahid, J.; decided February 6, 2026; revision against summoning order dated 9.12.2025 of Civil Judge (Pravar Khand)/Upper CJM, Mau in Case No. 22014 of 2025 (Dhurbhari Vs. Leelawati Devi); Sections 342, 365, 420, 465, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC; Section 156(3) and Section 203 Cr.P.C. rejection dated 24.1.2023 set aside by revisional court order dated 20.11.2024; Section 202 Cr.P.C. statements; police report dated 17.7.2022; registered sale deed dated 26.4.2019 in favour of Leelawati Devi; cheque of Rs. 4 lacs snatched and torn, not honoured; 'purely civil dispute' contention rejected; prima facie case; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the criminal revision was dismissed and the summoning order dated 9.12.2025 stands. ¶20

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the criminal revision was dismissed and the summoning order dated 9.12.2025 stands.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether, on the averments and evidence, the matter between the parties is purely of a civil nature such that the criminal proceedings cannot stand. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Having regard to the averments, facts, reasons and evidences, the matter could not be treated as a purely civil dispute.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 9.12.2025, and the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Key takeaways

A prima facie offence is made out against the revisionists/accused persons.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Allahabad High Court, Abdul Shahid, J.) against summoning order dated 9.12.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Pravar Khand), Fast Track Court/Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Case No. 22014 of 2025 (Dhurbhari Vs. Leelawati Devi and others), summoning the revisionists under Sections 342, 365, 420, 465, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Complaint alleged that the complainant was taken from Kushinagar to Mau without consent in a Scorpio vehicle, kept at different places, and pressed to execute a registered sale deed dated 26.4.2019 in favour of Leelawati Devi, wife of revisionist Rajendra Chauhan; a cheque of Rs. 4 lacs allegedly handed over at the registry office was snatched and torn by accused Pappu, and the police report dated 17.7.2022 showed no amount credited to the complainant's account. Following remand directions of the criminal revisional court dated 20.11.2024 (setting aside the earlier Section 203 Cr.P.C. rejection dated 24.1.2023), the trial court found a prima facie case that the sale deed was executed without payment. Held: on the averments, facts, reasons and evidences the matter could not be treated as a purely civil dispute; no illegality or irregularity in the summoning order; prima facie offence made out. Revision dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 918 of 2026

¶3

Rajendra Chauhan And 2 Others

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	:	Avanindra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 87

¶7

HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶8

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

¶9

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 9.12.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Pravar Khand), Fast Track Court/Upper Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in Case No. 22014 of 2025 (Dhurbhari Vs. Leelawati Devi and others), whereby the revisionists have been summoned to face trial under Section 342, 365, 420, 465, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the impugned order dated 9.12.2025 has been passed without proper application of judicial mind. He further submits that the matter in dispute is purely of civil nature. There is sale deed already registered. It could not be believed that any registered sale deed could be executed in other place other than the Sub-Registrar office. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionists has also submitted that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed which after due process has been rejected under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 24.1.2023. That order has been challenged before the revisional court and that revisional court has set aside the order dated 24.1.2023 and passed an order dated 20.11.2024 that the learned trial court had not given due attention to the police report dated 17.7.2022, Hence it was directed that

¶12

CRLR No. 918 of 2026

¶13

¶14

in light of the observations made by the criminal revisional court, the complaint be decided after providing opportunity of hearing to the applicant.

¶15

Learned trial court had considered the issues and perused the statement recorded under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C, report of police station dated 17.7.2022. As per that police report, said fact came into knowledge that the land situated at Gram Pahnsa had came into ownership of the complainant upon death of his parents. As per the complaint, the opposite party Pappu, Subhash, Seraj and Ram Bachan met with the complainant at Kushinagar and they took him at Mau without his consent in Scorpio vehicle. Thereafter, he had been kept for one night on the tube-well of Ram Bachan and one day at the tube-well of Subhash and for two to three days near Fatima crossing situated at Vijay Plaza. In the registry office when the complainant has raised this objection that he had not get any amount of sale deed, then the Registrar refused to execute the registered sale deed. It is further alleged that thereafter, Subhash have given a cheque of Rs. 4 lacs to the complainant and thereafter the sale deed was executed. After execution of registered sale deed, Pappu, Subhash, Seraj and Ram Bachan met at Railway Station and there Pappu snatched that cheque from the complainant and torned the said cheque and threatened the revisionists.

¶16

Learned trial court has mentioned in his order that as per report, there has been no amount was credited in the account of the complainant, hence on the basis of complaint, the statement of complainant and supporting statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C and perusal of police report dated 17.7.2022, there has been prima facie case made out that the sale deed was executed without payment of amount. The entire genesis of taking away the complainant at different places and thereafter threatening and taking him to registry office for execution of sale deed is made out. When objection was raised by the complainant before the Registry office that he did not get any amount then the Sub-Registrar had refused to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, a cheque of an amount of Rs. 4 lacs has been given to him and the sale deed was executed, but said cheque was not honoured and no amount was credited on the basis of that said cheque in the account of the complainant. There is averment of the complainant

¶17

CRLR No. 918 of 2026

¶18

¶19

that the said cheque has been snatched by accused Pappu and torned it. There is also an allegation on Rajendra Chauhan that he is the head of the entire conspiracy as the sale deed was executed in the name of Leelawati Devi wife of Rajendra Chauhan. The name of Leelawati Devi is very much clear in lieu of registered sale deed dated 26.4.2019, hence prima facie evidence is available against the accused persons.

¶20

In view thereof, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 9.12.2025. It could not be treated as purely civil dispute in view of the averments, facts, reason and evidences. Prima facie offence is made out against the revisionists/accused persons. Hence, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed.

¶21

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶22

February 6, 2026

¶23

sfa/

¶24

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

Rajendra Chauhan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Chauhan 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay vs State of U.P. and Another

Vandana Gupta vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Surendra Kumar Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalpendra Chahar @ Kd vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Farahim Vs State of U.P. and Another