HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7513 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.K. Gupta, Learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that this Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia, in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2024 (Lakshman Sharma versus State of U.P. and Others), and the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Ballia (Annexure Nos. 5 and 3, respectively, to this petition). The petitioner has also prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction directing the learned Magistrate to direct the police of the concerned police station to register a First Information Report against the opposite parties/respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and to investigate the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 2 is the real brother of the petitioner, who fabricated a forged mortgage deed on a ten-rupee stamp paper after the death of their father, purporting it to have been executed by the petitioner's father. On the basis of the said forged mortgage deed, respondent No. 2 allegedly took illegal possession of the share of agricultural land belonging to the petitioner. It was further submitted that the signature on the forged mortgage deed is not that of the petitioner's father, which is evident from the signatures available on the ration card and in a civil suit filed by the petitioner's father. He further submitted that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also connived with respondent No. 2 by affixing their signatures on the said forged deed as attesting witnesses. It Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Laxman Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) was submitted that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., bearing Case No. 2488 of 2022 (Laxman Sharma vs. Ramji Sharma and another), which was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 18.12.2023, observing that the dispute is purely of a civil nature. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2023, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2024 (Laxman Sharma vs. State of U.P. and Others), which too was dismissed, upholding the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts have committed an irregularity in dismissing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as the allegations regarding forged signatures on the mortgage deed are apparent from the documents, which were duly referred to in the said application. Therefore, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 5. The allegations mentioned in the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. prima facie appear to have arisen after disputes developed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, who are brothers, as is evident from the order dated 18.12.2023. The learned Trial Court noted that a report was called for from the concerned police station regarding the allegations, wherein it was reported that late Dashrath Sharma, father of the petitioner and respondent No. 2, had mortgaged his agricultural land to arrange money for performing the last rites of his wife. It was further reported that respondent No. 2 is presently unwilling to repay the mortgaged amount. Considering the said police report, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. This Court does not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. 6. Apart from this, it is pertinent to note that an unregistered mortgage deed has no legal sanctity. Even if such a mortgage deed had been executed, the mortgaged property would devolve upon the legal heirs after the death of the mortgagor. Hence, the allegations lack substance. The petitioner has no surviving grievance after the death of his father, particularly when respondent No. 2 had no legal right to redeem the property in the absence of a registered mortgage. 7. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld, and the present A227 No. 7513 of 2025 2 petition is dismissed. April 28, 2026 Mukesh A227 No. 7513 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad