HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5141 of 2022 Court No. - 92 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. List revised. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist is present. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 6 is not present. 3. Perused the record. 4. The instant revision has been preferred by the revisionist, Smt. Shanno, against the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun in Misc. Case No. 1836 of 2022 (Smt. Shanno Vs. Jyada Bano alias Bhinno and others) on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is a widowed and Parda Naseen lady and her daughter-in-law, Jyada Bano, is not having good character and, therefore, after the death of steps son of the revisionist, she sold the house without informing to her in-laws. She sold the house by way of Sale deed No. 9239 and 9230 having Jild No. 2096 on 23.03.2022 without having any legal or valid authority on the basis of false and fabricated documents. The revisionist approached the concerned police station regarding registration of F.I.R. but no F.I.R. was registered by the police and thereafter she moved application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun for getting her F.I.R. registered but the said application was also dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2022. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Chandra Bhan Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., V.P. Singh Kashyap Smt. Shanno .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order against the settled principle of law. A cognizable offence is made out by the facts of the application. It is submitted that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the revision be allowed. 7. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. The husband of the revisionist has married three ladies including the revisionist. The respondent has not committed any cognizable offence. The dispute is purely of civil in nature whereas the revisionist is giving it a colour of criminality. It is further prayed that the revision may kindly be dismissed. 8. As per record, an application was filed by the revisionist before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun for getting a case registered. As per the content of the application the husband of the revisionist has died and her daughter-in-law has sold the house vide sale deed Nos. 9239 and 9239 having Zild No. 2096 on 23.3.2022. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate called a report from the concerned police station and after perusal of the said report, the said application was dismissed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the impugned order has clearly stated that the revisionist has not mentioned in the application whether the application was given to the Senior Superintendent or not. The revisionist has not mentioned in the application on which false and fabricated documents the said sale deed was executed. Now-a-days it has become a tendency for becoming Civil dispute to a criminal dispute by a clever drafting. The contents shows that it is a civil dispute. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the the learned Magistrate has not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 21.11.2022. 10. The revision is dismissed being devoid of merit. October 7, 2025 Kumar Manish CRLR No. 5141 of 2022 2 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad