HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6338 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar, holding brief of Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State are present. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the order dated 20.01.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2024 (Shri Nath Gupta versus State of U.P. and others) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Judge (POCSO) Room No.2, Prayagraj and order dated 20.03.2024 rejecting petitioner application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Special CJM, Prayagraj, seeking a direction for registration of an FIR against the respondents, alleging that they had fabricated a forged compromise and filed the same in a civil case pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC. It was submitted that the signatures on the alleged compromise deed were not those of the petitioner and had been forged by the respondents. However, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.03.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2024 (Shri Nath Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others), which too was dismissed on 20.01.2025. Learned counsel submitted that both the courts below failed to properly consider the allegations made by the petitioner. It was further submitted that fabrication and forgery of documents constitute serious offences and ought to have been duly examined by the courts below. Hence, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Dwivedi, Suresh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shri Nath Gupta .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned CJM, Prayagraj, records a finding that the disputed question relating to alleged forged signatures on the compromise deed can appropriately be adjudicated by the court where the civil proceedings are pending. The said finding does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. It is well settled that where allegations pertain to fabrication or use of forged documents in judicial proceedings, the appropriate remedy lies under Section 340 Cr.P.C., and not by way of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld. The present petition is dismissed. May 5, 2026 Ujjawal A227 No. 6338 of 2025 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad