Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51393 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1634 of 2025 Revisionist :- Dilip Kumar Alias Ram Sagar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Ram Milan Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Atarra, District Banda in Misc. Case No. 91/XII/2024 ( Dilip Kumar @ Ram Sagar Vs. Savitri Devi and others) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S.,2023 had been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that Opposite Party No. 2, by preparing and using forged documents, has filed a case for mutation of her name in the revenue record in place of late Ram Balak. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has further argued that on the basis of the said forged documents, the Opposite Party No. 2 claims that she is daughter of late Ram Balak, whereas there is evidence that she is not the daughter of late Ram Balak. 4. This Court has raised pointed query to the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist as to what document has been filed by Opposite Party No. 2 before the court dealing with the civil matter. He replied that he is not aware of the said document. This Court further raised query to the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist that unless the revisionist is aware about the document, on the basis of which Opposite Party No. 2 is claiming that she is the daughter of late Ram Balak, how can he claim that the said document is a forged document and has been prepared by Opposite Party No. 2 with an intention to grab the property. The learned counsel appearing for the revisionist could not give any reply to the aforesaid query. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and have gone through the contents of the impugned order dated 27.01.2025. 6. I find that the dispute amongst the parties is absolutely civil in nature and currently, the civil dispute amongst the parties is being dealt with by the competent court. I further find that the revisionist is not in a position to spell out, as to which document has been forged and who has prepared the said document. 7. Unless it is spelled out, in categorical terms, that certain document is a forged document and it has been prepared by the Opposite Parties No.2 to 5, no cognizable offence is made out in the matter against Opposite Parties No. 2 to 5 and therefore, the learned Magistrate, while rejecting the application filed under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S., had not committed any manifest error of law. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Gss Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad