Allahabad High Court
Chhotelal Chauhan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:96653 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7846 of 2025 Chhotelal Chauhan .....Petitioner(s) Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.K. Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Ghazipur in criminal revision no. 120 of 2023 and summoning order dated 10.04.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 2022 (Chandrabhan Bhardwaj Vs. Chhotelal Chauhan) under Section 419, 504 I.P.C. Police Station Bhudkura, District Ghazipur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Chandr Bhan moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner had filed a complaint on the Chief Minister's IGRS portal on 20.07.2022 in the name of the respondent. It was further alleged that, in the said complaint, the mobile numbers of both the respondent and the petitioner were mentioned, but the OTP was received on the petitioner's mobile number. When the concerned Circle Officer conducted an inquiry, this fact came to light.Thereafter, said application was treated as a complaint and registered as Complaint Case No. 882 of 2022 (Chandra Bhan vs. Chotte Lal). The learned trial court, after recording the statements of the respondent and his witnesses, summoned the petitioner for offences under Sections 419 and 504 IPC. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.04.2023 passed in the said complaint case, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2023 (Chotte Lal Chauhan vs. State of U.P. and others), which was also dismissed on 28.01.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in brief, submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no such complaint was ever filed by him on the Chief Minister's IGRS portal. It is contended that there is no reliable material to show that the alleged complaint was submitted by the petitioner, and the mere receipt of OTP on a mobile number is not sufficient to establish his involvement. It is further submitted that the summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record. It is also argued that the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 419 and 504 IPC are not made out against the petitioner. Lastly, it is submitted that both the impugned orders suffer from illegality and are liable to be set aside.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the offence under Section 419 IPC relates to cheating by personation. For attracting the said offence, it is necessary to establish that the accused has deceived a person by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, and thereby induced the person so deceived to act in a manner causing damage or harm. Thus, the essential ingredients are (i) personation, (ii) deception, and (iii) inducement resulting in harm.
6. It is well settled that at the stage of summoning, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists on the basis of material on record. The principles governing summoning are akin to those under Section 319 Cr.P.C., where the Court must be satisfied that there exists sufficient material indicating involvement of the accused in the commission of offence, though not requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.
7. In the present case, from the material on record, it prima facie appears that a complaint was filed on the IGRS portal in the name of the respondent and the OTP was received on the mobile number allegedly linked with the petitioner. Copy of the said complaint was filed before the Trial Court.Such circumstance, at this stage, cannot be said to be wholly insufficient to proceed, as it gives rise to a prima facie inference requiring adjudication after evidence is led. Whether the petitioner actually impersonated the respondent and committed cheating is a matter of trial and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.
8. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below, and the same are hereby upheld. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) April 29, 2026 Ujjawal