Allahabad High Court
Vinay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:209455 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13610 of 2025 Vinay Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhinav Kesarwani, Dharmendra Pratap Singh, Sarvashva Thakur Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 16.07.2025, whereby the revisional court upheld the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar dismissing the petitioner's complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell dated 17.11.2011 for the purchase of a plot situated in Khasra No. 1252, ad-measuring 744.11 sq. yards, located at Circular Road, Tehsil Sadar Muzaffarnagar, upon payment of Rs. 80 lakhs to its owner, Smt. Uma Rathee. The sale deed, however, could not be executed during her lifetime, and Smt. Uma Rathee died on 18.05.2021. It is alleged that, after the death of Smt. Uma Rathee, her legal heirs (respondent Nos. 2 & 3), despite being aware of the agreement to sell and the payment of Rs. 80 lakhs received by their predecessor-in-interest, executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 4, a third-party purchaser. According to the petitioner, this action amounts to cheating and misappropriation of the amount paid by him. The petitioner approached the police seeking registration of an FIR for offences pertaining to cheating, forgery, and fabrication of documents. As the police did not register the FIR, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate seeking a direction for registration of the FIR against respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 12.07.2023, directed that the application be treated as a complaint case. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 06.05.2024, holding that the dispute was civil in nature. The revision preferred against the said order was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 16.07.2025, thereby affirming the order of the learned Magistrate.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the courts below erred in rejecting the complaint by placing reliance on the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, particularly Section 23. It is submitted that the basis of the allegations pertains to forgery, cheating, and dishonest sale of property to a third party despite prior receipt of consideration from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the allegations clearly attract the ingredients of Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC, and are not merely civil in nature. It is further argued that the revisional court went beyond its jurisdiction in relying upon judicial precedents concerning the validity and admissibility of a power of attorney- issues which cannot be adjudicated at the pre- FIR stage.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that it is an admitted position that Smt. Uma Rathee executed a registered agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner after receiving Rs. 80 lakhs. It is also not in dispute that she passed away on 18.05.2021, and subsequently respondent Nos. 2 & 3 executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 4.
6. In light of the above factual matrix, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate as well as the revisional court are ex facie erroneous. Both courts failed to examine whether the allegations prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences. At the stage of registration of an FIR, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence; it cannot undertake a detailed scrutiny of the validity of documents or adjudicate upon the title to the property. The reliance placed on the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and issues relating to civil title was wholly misdirected.
7. Given the nature of allegations, which prima facie indicate elements of cheating, forgery, and dishonest misappropriation, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner's complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offences requiring investigation. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.07.2025, as well as the order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the earlier order dated 12.07.2023, are hereby set aside.
8. The Station House Officer concerned is directed to register the FIR on the basis of the petitioner's complaint and undertake the investigation uninfluenced by any observations made by the courts below, and strictly in accordance with law.
9. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands allowed.
(Vinod Diwakar,J.) November 21, 2025 Anil K. Sharma