HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 40695 of 2025 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Mr.Preet Pal Singh Rathore and Mrs. Priya Saxena, learned Counsel for the applicants, Shri Mahendra Pal Singh, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. 2. This application has been filed under Section 528 BNSS by the applicants with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.01.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun in Complaint Case No.902/2017(Gayatri Vs. Angan Lal and others) under Sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C., Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun as well as order dated 22.08.2025 passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No.3, Budaun in Criminal Revision No.79 of 2025 including entire proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the present dispute relates to the wife of late Omkar, namely Gayatri Devi, who was son of late Bhagwan Das and grandson of late Khemai. Omkar married with one Gayatri Devi daughter of Ramsahai. Unfortunately, she died issue less on 15.06.1989, when her husband namely Omkar and her father -in-law namely Bhagwan Das were alive. There was some ancestral agricultural land in the name of Bhagwan Das. Unfortunately, their son Omkar, husband of Gayatri Devi disappeared on 19.09.1991 and did not return back till today. 4. One Rajeshwari Devi @ Jai Devi daughter of Amriti Lal, resident of P.S. Bhamora, District bareilly was married with Darshan Singh, resident Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Preet Pal Singh Rathore, Priya Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mahendra Pal Singh Gaur, Suman Srivastava Praveen Kumar Mittal And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) of village Daleeppur, District Bareily. Rajeshwari Devi posing herself to be Gayatri Devi wife of Omkar. Darshan Lal has also died and the name of Rajeshwari Devi was recorded in revenue record as his legal successor. 5. It is further submitted that some miscreants did collusion with the Rajeshwari @ Jai Devi wife of Darshan Lal and posed her as Gayatri Devi. Initially she posed herself as wife of late Omkar and approached to the Tehsildar Budaun to mutate her name in the revenue record in place of her husband Omkar without obtaining any order from judicial Court. Consequently, PA-11 Ka dated 07.12.2011 was issued and the name of Rajeshwari @ Jai Devi @ Gayatri Devi was entered in the revenue record. It is further submitted that thereafter Rajeshwari @ Jai Devi @ Gayatri Devi executed the sale deed on 05.11.2012 in favour of Rajendra, Radha Krishna Yadav, Balister Singh and opposite party no.2 was aware about her status. For creating her identity as Gayatri Devi, she got issued a general domicile certificate no.203132000307, dated 18.1.2013, from the Sub Divisional Officer Aonla Bareilly in the name of Gayatri Devi wife of Omkar. 6. Angan Lal and Pooran Lal submitted an application before the Chairman/Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad Ujhani for issuance of death certificate of late Gayatri Devi. After some scrutiny, death certificate dated 15.01.2013 was issued. The co-accused Pooran Lal lodged F.I.R., dated 20.02.2013, being Case Crime No.108/2013 under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. at Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun against opposite party no.2 and her associates. 7. On the basis of sale deed dated 05.11.2012 the name of purchaser was mutated in revenue record on 15.10.2013. Thereafter late Angan Lal and Pooran Lal filed a Civil Suit no.27/2013 for cancellation of sale deed datd 5.11.2012. Thereafter her brother-in-laws Angan Lal and Pooran Lal filed an application before S.D.M. Aonla, District Bareilly for getting the domicile certificate cancelled. After detailed inquiry, the said domicile certificate was cancelled, being a forged document. Opposite Party no.2 did not challenge the said order before any authority. 8. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer after detailed investigation in Case No.108/2013 under Sections 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. at Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun came to the conclusion that Gayatri and Rajeshwari @ Jai Devi are not same women but they are NA528 No. 40695 of 2025 2 different and Gayatri Devi wife of Omkar had already died on 15.06.1989. 9. It is further submitted that for creating pressure and as a counter blast, opposite party no.2 filed a Complaint Case no.209/2017 on 02.05.2017 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun. The opposite party no.2 got recorded her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and C.J.M. Budaun also conducted an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate relying upon the statement of opposite party no.2 and her witness, summoned the accused, vide order dated 26.11.2020. The summoning order was challenged by filing a Criminal Revision No.26/2021, which was allowed by order dated 18.04.2022 and it was observed that Hori Lal, Angan Lal and Pooran Lal have already being died and they have been summoned, the matter was remanded for passing a fresh order. 10. It is further submitted on behalf of applicants that the learned Magistrate again passed a summoning order dated 21.05.2022, the same was also challenged by filing a Criminal Revision no.176/2022, which was allowed by order dated 11.11.2022 and summoning order was set aside. The learned Sessions Judge observed that accused Vinay Kumar Saxena and Ashish Sharma are the public servant and they issued the said death certificate while discharging of their official duties and they cannot be prosecuted as per Section 197 Cr.P.C. Against the order dated 11.11.2022, the opposite party no.2 filed a Criminal Revision no.5477/2022 before the High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2024 and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 18.01.2025 again summoned the applicants under Section 120-B, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. Against the summoning order a Criminal Revision No.79/2025 was filed, the same was dismissed by order dated 14.10.2025. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that there are general allegations in the complaint and the statement given under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are also general in nature, no specific role has been attributed against any of the applicants. The applicants are also not beneficiary in any manner. No offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants and the summoning order has been filed in a very casual manner. Without taking into consideration the fact of the case and the summoning order as well as the NA528 No. 40695 of 2025 3 order passed by learned Court is liable to be set aside. 12. Per contra, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for Opposite Party no.2 that no illegality has been committed by learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, after a long legal pattern filed present summoning order dated 18.01.2025 the learned Magistrate has taken in to consideration the facts as stated in the complaint and has also taken in to consideration the statements of complainant given under Section 200 and her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 13. The learned Magistrate has reached an opinion that prima facie case is made out against the applicants. The applicants have challenged the summoning order by filing a Criminal Revision. The same was also dismissed by a detailed and reasoned order dated 22.08.2025. There is no illegality in passing of the above mentioned impugned orders and the application is liable to be dismissed. 14. As per the facts of the case, a complaint was filed by opposite party no.2. Her statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and summoning order was passed by order dated 26.11.2020. The said summoning order was challenged by filing a Criminal Revision no.26/2021, wherein the learned Sessions Judge along with the said revision by making an observation that Hori Lal, Angan Lal and Pooran Lal has already died. The matter was remanded back. Thereafter the learned Magistrate again passed the summoning order dated 21.05.2022 against which surviving applicants filed a Criminal Revision no.176/2022, which was allowed by learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 11.11.2022. The summoning order was set aside. 15. The learned Sessions Judge while deciding the said revision, by making an observation that Vinay Kumar Saxena and Ashish Sharma are the public servant. The alleged death certificate was issued while discharging their official duties and prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required before filing of the complaint, and the matter was referred for passing a fresh order. 16. Opposite Party no.2 challenged the said order dated 11.11.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Bareilly by filing a Criminal Revision no.5477/2022 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 23.07.2024 dismissed the said revision. NA528 No. 40695 of 2025 4 17. After that the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 18.01.2025 and summoned the applicants to face trial under Section 120-B, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. The applicant challenged the summoning order dated 18.01.2025 by filing a said Criminal Revision no.79/2025 which was dismissed vide order dated 22.08.2025. 18. The learned Magistrate while passing the summoning order dated 18.01.2025 has taken into consideration the facts as stated in the complaint and also taken into consideration the statement of Opposite Party no.2 recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has given a detailed reasoning by which he reached a conclusion that there are sufficient material for summoning the applicants. The learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing of the impugned order. 19. The learned Sessions Judge while deciding the Criminal Revision no.79/2025 has also given a detailed reasoning in passing of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025. The learned Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in passing of the impugned order, hence the application is liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. February 25, 2026 VS NA528 No. 40695 of 2025 5 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR BARATAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad