CRLR/1330/2026 of RAMPAL SHARMA Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 22 OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1330 of 2026 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Meerut, in Misc. Case No. 6757 of 2025 (Rampal Sharma vs. Satish Chandra Kansal and others), under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., Police Station Civil Lines, District Meerut, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. 3. Revisionist/complainant Rampal Sharma has filed an application under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S. against Satish Chandra Kansal, Dr. Madan Mohan Agrawal, Indra Kumar Sekhari, Smt. Kamla Devi, Smt. Prabha Kansal, Dr. Jagat Prakash Goyal, Smt. Kanti Devi, Sri Govind Ram, Sri Jauhari Mal Bansal, Sri Sunil Kumar, Sri Ajay Kumar, Kumari Chitra, Sri Prakash Mittal, Sri Atul Kumar, Sri Vinay Kumar Kansal, Satish Chandra (M.S. Chemical), Pooja Rastogi (M.S. Chemical), Atul Kumar Rastogi, Raj Kishor Rastogi, Ashok Kumar Gupta, Rajeev Bansal, Santosh Kumar Rastogi. 4. It is alleged that revisionist/Rampal Sharma, a senior citizen and resident of Rizhani, District Meerut, purchased land bearing Khasra Nos. 180/2 and 183, admeasuring 3,404 square yards, situated at Village Mohkampur, Meerut, through a registered sale deed dated 01.09.1982 from Smt. Devi and Smt. Shanti Devi. Originally, Kundan Lal had executed a registered Will in 1948 in favour of his wife, Sharbati Devi, who thereafter executed a registered Will in 1954 in favour of her daughters and grandson. After her death in 1973, their names were duly recorded in the revenue records. The revisionist purchased the land from the lawful co-sharers and has been in possession since then. 5. It is also alleged that certain persons, in conspiracy, fabricated a forged Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashish Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rampal Sharma .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 22 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Will in 1973 and obtained its probate ex parte in 1980 without knowledge of the rightful parties. On the basis of the said forged Will, further sale deeds and transactions were executed in favour of different persons and firms. The revisionist/complainant asserts that Sharbati Devi used to affix her thumb impression, whereas the alleged forged Will bears signatures, indicating fabrication. 6. It is further alleged that forged powers of attorney, agreements, and sale deeds were subsequently created to usurp the property, even by producing impersonators of deceased persons. Despite several complaints made to the police authorities, including a written complaint dated 18.01.2025, no FIR has been registered. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that although a Will is alleged to have been executed and its probate obtained, the same are wholly illegal and not in accordance with law. It is contended that the said Will is forged and fabricated, and the probate was obtained ex parte by concealing material facts from the competent court. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the revisionist/complainant, Rampal Sharma, a senior citizen and resident of District Meerut, had purchased land bearing Khasra Nos. 180/2 and 183, admeasuring 3,404 square yards, situated at Village Mohkampur, Meerut, through a registered sale deed dated 01.09.1982 from the recorded tenure holders, and has been in lawful possession since then. It is further submitted that pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, a forged Will allegedly executed in the year 1973 was set up and its probate was obtained in the year 1980 without notice to the rightful parties. On the basis of the said forged Will, several subsequent sale deeds, powers of attorney, and agreements were executed in favour of various persons and firms with the sole intention to usurp the land of the revisionist. 9. Learned counsel has argued that Sharbati Devi used to affix her thumb impression in all documents during her lifetime; however, the alleged Will bears signatures, which clearly indicates fabrication. It is next submitted that impersonators of deceased persons were produced and forged documents were created to give colour of legitimacy to the fraudulent transactions. 10. It is lastly submitted that despite repeated complaints to the police authorities, including a written complaint dated 18.01.2025, no FIR has been registered. Hence, the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was filed against the accused persons, but the same has not been properly considered, necessitating interference by this Court. 11. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Hence, the criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the matter is purely civil in nature. The entire dispute, if any, arises out of the Will executed by Genda Lal in favor of his wife, Sharbati Devi, in the year 1948. Thereafter, Sharbati Devi executed a registered Will in the year 1954 in favor of Smt. Devi, Smt. Shanti CRLR No. 1330 of 2026 2 Devi, and Smt. Susheela Devi. After the death of Sharbati in the year 1973, their names were recorded accordingly. 13. The revisionist claims to have purchased the land in question, measuring 3,404 square yards, from the shares of Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Devi. It is further evident that the probate, if granted ex parte, could have been challenged before the competent civil court in accordance with the law. The dispute essentially relates to the title and validity of testamentary documents, which are matters of civil adjudication. 14. The learned trial court has specifically observed that several civil and criminal proceedings are pending between the parties and, therefore, rejected the application under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, which are purely civil in nature, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. February 23, 2026 M. Tarik CRLR No. 1330 of 2026 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.)