HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15438 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prateek Tyagi, learned AGA for State-respondent. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a suitable order or direction to set aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track (14th Finance Commission), Varanasi, in Criminal Revision No. 276 of 2025 (Abdul Salman Khan and others vs. State of U.P. and another), as well as the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 3/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in Complaint Case No. 94612 of 2023 (Gayasuddin vs. Abdul Salman), whereby the petitioners have been summoned under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC, Police Station Dashashwamegh, District Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner's father on 23.3.1957. On the strength of the said sale deed, the petitioner came into possession of the house and became its owner. The respondent filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the sale deed dated 23.3.1957 is forged and that the petitioner, on the basis of the said sale deed, got his name mutated in his favour. It was further alleged that the petitioner is a tenant of the said house and is now claiming ownership on the basis of the sale deed dated 23.3.1957. It was submitted that the said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anjani Kumar, Gaurav Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Abdul Salman Khan And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) converted into Complaint Case No.94612 of 2023 (Gayasuddin vs. Abdul Salman). The statements of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and the petitioner was summoned to face trial for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sale deed executed in favour of his father is of the year 1957 and bears the signature of the Sub-Registrar, Varanasi. The respondent produced a photostat copy of the sale deed by affixing the seal of Sub-Registrar-II to create a false claim that the said sale deed is forged. It was further submitted that the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act and was informed that no post of Sub-Registrar-II existed in the year 1957, and that the said post came into existence only after 1990. It was argued that the petitioner has been summoned on the basis of false and baseless allegations, and there is no material on record to show that the sale deed executed in the year 1957 is forged. It was also submitted that the petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision No.276 of 2025 (Abdul Salman Khan and others vs. State of U.P. and another), which was dismissed on 12.11.2025. 4. Sri Prateek Tyagi, learned AGA for the State-respondent, submitted that the respondent has alleged in the complaint that the petitioner got a forged sale deed executed in his favour in respect of a house of which he is only a tenant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 6. From the perusal of the application filed by the respondent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was later converted into a complaint, it appears that only a bald allegation has been made against the petitioner that he forged a sale deed of the year 1957. No specific particulars have been disclosed from which it can be inferred that the said sale deed is forged. A mere allegation of forgery is not sufficient to constitute offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC. A person making such an allegation is required to disclose material particulars on the basis of which the Court may arrive at a prima facie conclusion that fabrication or forgery has been committed by the accused. In the absence of such material A227 No. 15438 of 2025 2 particulars, a bald allegation alone cannot constitute an offence under the IPC. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track (14th Finance Commission), Varanasi, in Criminal Revision No. 276 of 2025, as well as the impugned order dated 26.9.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in Complaint Case No. 94612 of 2023, are hereby set aside. Consequently, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case are quashed. May 6, 2026 Mukesh A227 No. 15438 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad