Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64757 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27897 of 2024 Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prakhar Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing impugned order dated 28.11.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.4, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No.2872 of 2022 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. P.S. Hanumant Vihar, District-Kanpur Nagar as well as to quash impugned order dated 28.05.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.19, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No.69 of 2024 under section 397 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant matter the applicant, who has applied for allotment of gas agency in his favour, when got information through reply dated 23.06.2014 to his RTI application that the agency was allotted to O.P. Nos.2 and 3, has filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 15.07.2022 wherein it is alleged that O.P. nos.2 and 3, who had applied for dealership of gas agency, did not have the land and lease deed filed by them along with the application was forged. The application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as a complaint case vide order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the court below. He next submitted that after recording evidence u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and conducting enquiry, the court below has dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 28.11.2023. Being aggrieved, with the order the applicant preferred a criminal revision, which has been dismissed vide order dated 28.05.2024. He further submitted that both the aforesaid orders have been assailed in this application. He submitted that the lease deed, which is claimed to be a registered document (copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-9 to this application), is not a registered document. As such, the allotment of the gas agency made in favour of O.P. nos.2 and 3 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and dismissal of the complaint filed by the applicant was totally unjust, unfair and against the norms of law. He next contended that the revisional court has also failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its right perspective and wrongly concurred with the findings of the court below and dismissed the revision. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that there is no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the order passed by the court below as well as by the revisional court. He submitted that the applicant is one of the competitor for allotment of gas agency and once he failed in getting allotment in his favour, he has filed the complaint, which has rightly been dismissed by the court below as in case any forged document was filed by the opposite parties for obtaining the gas agency, the proceedings ought have been initiated by H.P.C.L, which was actually cheated, and not by the applicant. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that it is not the case of the applicant that his land has been used by O.P. nos.2 and 3 by preparing a forged lease deed. Further, the applicant does not seem to be affected by any such act of the opposite parties, rather it is the H.P.C.L, which has actually been cheated and it ought have initiated the criminal proceedings against them. In my view, in this case the applicant has abused the process of law by filing a bogus complaint just in order to get the dealership of a gas agency. I find no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the orders passed by both the courts below. The present application lacks merit. 6. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad