HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14764 of 2024 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State are present. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2024 passed by the Learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (POSCO) 1st Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2024 (Raj Bahadur Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) and order dated 6.3.2024 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magaistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Criminal Misc. Application No. 783 of 2023 (Raj Bahadur Yadav Vs. Daya Shankar and others). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the respondent was dismissed by the learned ACGM, Bhadohi at Gyanpur on the ground that the allegations were against an army personnel and, therefore, the concerned court had no jurisdiction to entertain any criminal complaint against him. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2024 (Raj Bahadur Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another). However, the said criminal revision was also dismissed on 5.10.2024. The learned revisional court observed that if the petitioner had any knowledge regarding forgery allegedly committed by the respondent for obtaining employment in the army, he ought to have approached the competent authorities concerned with such grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had sought information under the RTI Act on two occasions, which revealed that the respondent had qualified the matriculation examination twice. According to the information obtained, the respondent first appeared in the matriculation Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Raj Bahadur Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) examination in the year 1986 and obtained a certificate from Netaji Rajnarayan Inter College, Sarbatkhani, Bhadohi. Thereafter, he again appeared in the matriculation examination from Intermediate College, Babusarai, Bhadohi and passed the same in the year 1996. It was submitted that the respondent obtained employment in the army on the basis of the high school certificate obtained in the year 1986. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that although both matriculation certificates are not presently available with the petitioner, the information obtained under the RTI Act prima facie indicates that the respondent obtained two matriculation certificates with a gap of about ten years, thereby suggesting concealment of his actual age for obtaining employment in the army. It was contended that the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. required proper investigation. Learned counsel lastly submitted that both the courts below erred in dismissing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction merely because the respondent was an army personnel. According to him, the findings recorded by both the courts regarding lack of jurisdiction are per se illegal and liable to be set aside. 6. Learned AGA submitted that a property dispute exists between the parties and the petitioner appears to be motivated by personal enmity. It was contended that due to such enmity, the petitioner filed a frivolous complaint against the respondent. It was further submitted that if the petitioner had any information regarding the alleged forgery committed by the respondent, it was incumbent upon him to approach the competent authorities concerned. Therefore, the orders passed by the courts below do not suffer from any infirmity. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court is of the view that dismissal of the petitioner's application solely on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against an army personnel is not proper. Accordingly, both the impugned orders dated 5.10.2024 and 6.3.2024 are set aside. 8. The learned trial court is directed to restore Criminal Misc. Application No. 783 of 2023 (Raj Bahadur Yadav vs. Daya Shankar and others) to its original number and pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering the material available on record. 9. The petition is accordingly allowed. May 12, 2026 A227 No. 14764 of 2024 2 Ujjawal A227 No. 14764 of 2024 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad