HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 611 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur in Case No. 3828 of 2019 (State vs. Sanjay Kumar Dubey), arising out of Case Crime No. 1039 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt., District-Gorakhpur, by which the objection raised by the revisionist has been dismissed in respect of the report sought from the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist was the tenant in the property in dispute and he has paid a sum of Rs. 10,000,00/- (Rs. Ten lacs), which is purportedly received by opposite party no. 2 as loan, if the said loan was not returned / repaid by the opposite party no. 2, the revisionist shall be at liberty to get the sale deed executed of the property in question. He next submitted that the revisionist has filed a suit for specific performance in the year 2017, which is still pending before the concerned civil court. He further submitted that, so far as the agreement dated 19.3.2016 is concerned, it is a subject matter of suit for specific performance. He also submitted that the opposite party no. 2 created some dispute in respect to the signatures purportedly made on said document dated 19.3.2016 and the opposite party no. 2 lodged an F.I.R. bearing No. 1039 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 448 and 506 I.P.C., alleging therein that the revisionist has forged signatures of opposite party no. 2 in the said agreement dated 19.3.2016. He further submitted that to verify the signatures on document dated 19.3.2016, the matter was referred by the police to F.S.L., Lucknow, however the said report sought to be received Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Akhilendra Yadav, G.A., Vandeep Nath Sanjay Kumar Dubey .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) from the F.S.L., Lucknow, was further referred to F.S.L., Varasani and F.S.L., Varanasi has submitted final report. He also submitted that opposite party no. He also submitted that opposite party no. 2 received a phone call from F.S.L., Varanasi, that the docket in respect of examination and analysis of signatures of opposite party no. 2 is complete and the same may be obtained by the concerned Investigating Officer and thereafter the I.O. collected the said docket from F.S.L., Varanasi. He further submitted that F.S.L., Lucknow was not having jurisdiction to examine the expert report from the District Gorakhpur and the docket was wrongly referred to FSL, Varanasi. He also submitted that there is no criminality involved in the such transaction, however the revisionist has been unnecessarily dragged into a criminal litigation. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has submitted that, the objection raised by the revisionist was considered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur and the CJM did not found any illegality in the said objection raised by the revisionist and therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that so far as the document dated 19.3.2016 is concerned, it is the subject matter of litigation between the parties in civil court in respect of the suit for specific performance and so far as the signature is concerned, it is a matter, which can only be examined by the expert body like Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). He further submitted that, presuming, but not admitting that the said sample / docket of signature was referred to FSL, Varanasi, but the same cannot be said to be illegal, as any laboratory within the territory of this country can examine any matter referred by the police for expert opinion and so far as the matter of receiving telephone call is concerned, it is well within the right of any complainant to pursue the investigation and there is no illegality, if any investigation is pursued but not supervised by any aggrieved party and mere receiving telephone call is not sufficient, that the opposite party no. 2 has manipulated the said report and the said report was received by the Investigating Officer and not by the opposite party no. 2. He further submitted that any expert body like FSL shall take precedent over any other report, therefore, no illegality can be found in the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions, the grounds raised by the revisionist, that the said signature was examined by the FSL, Varanasi and not by FSL, Lucknow is only a technical ground. Since both the laboratories are the government laboratories, whether a particular docket is examined by CRLR No. 611 of 2024 2 FSL, Lucknow or FSL, Varanasi makes no difference, as any administrative matters cannot be said to be incomplete with any jurisdictional and territorial error. It is only a matter of administrative convenience and left over to the administrative authorities to seek expert opinion from the competent laboratory in the present case from Varanasi. 7. Under the circumstances, no illegality can be found in the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, hence the revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 8. However, it shall remain open to the authorities to adduce appropriate evidence from the revisionist side during the course of trial. October 6, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 611 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad