HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16221 of 2026 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Pushpendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sarvjeet Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 5 and learned AGA for State. 2. The instant application has been preferred for seeking quashing of impugned order dated 23.03.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (SD), Chhata, Mathura, through which the opposite party nos.2 to 5 (accused person) has been summoned in pursuance to sections 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC in Case No.4170 of 2025 (State vs. Radhey Shyam and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.212 of 2024 and direct the learned court concerned to take fresh cognizance of offence against the above accused persons in pursuance to sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, except section 406 IPC. 3. It is the case of applicant, who is the informant in Case Crime No.212 of 2024, which has been registered as Case No.4170 of 2025 (State vs. Radhey Shyam), wherein after conducting detail investigation by concerned Investigating Officer charge-sheet has been submitted against the opposite party nos.2 to 5 on dated 20.03.2025, upon which learned court concerned vide order dated 12.05.2025 took cognizance of offence in pursuance to sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and summoned the accused persons. Thereafter, the order dated 12.05.2025 was challenged before this Court in Application u/s 528 BNSS No.20704 of 2025, which was set-aside vide order dated 04.07.2025 in the light of judgement rendered by Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others vs. State of Uttar Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pushpendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sarvjeet Kumar, Vikrant Pandey Virjan .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Pradesh and another reported in 2024 10 SCC 690. Thereafter, learned court of Civil Judge (SD), Chhata, Mathura in compliance of order dated 04.07.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed a fresh cognizance order on dated 23.03.2026 and summoned the opposite party nos.2 to 5/accused persons in pursuance to sections 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, omitting section 420 IPC at the time of taking fresh cognizance, which impugned the instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that section 420 IPC has been clearly made out against the accused persons, which has been observed at the time of taking cognizance that certain forged papers for inducing property putting the same for seeking claim of agricultural insurance in shape of manufacturing certain lease deed. Learned counsel for applicant also submitted that in case the trial cannot be proceeded in pursuance to section 406 & 420 IPC simultaneously as per the dictum pronounced by Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (supra), the alternative sections are available in pursuance to section 420 IPC, which is essential one to be tried by learned trial court. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for applicant sought the attention of Court over the cognizance of offence order dated 23.03.2026 itself, wherein it is specifically mentioned that "वादी के स्वािमत्व वाली भूिम का फजर् प्टा तैयार िकया गया है". 5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 5 vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that one of the accused, i.e., Radhey Shyam is the co-sharer of the same plot, which pertains to applicant and as such by way of putting record of rights for seeking claim of agricultural insurance is not covered in pursuance to attraction of section 420 IPC, but at the same time it is fairly admitted that other co-accused are not the co-sharer of the same portion of land, which pertains to accused Radhey Shyam as well as applicant. Learned AGA also adopted the contentions as made by learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 5. 6. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that attraction of section 420 IPC is specifically mentioned while taking cognizance of offence after perusal of the entire documents along with charge-sheet submitted by concerned Investigating Officer that certain documents have been prepared in shape of lease deed which has been alleged to be forged and fictitious for seeking NA528 No. 16221 of 2026 2 claim of agricultural insurance and as such attraction of section 420 IPC was essential at the time of taking cognizance of offence; so far as regarding section 406 IPC, the same can be substituted by alternative section, which clarifies the offence and punishment in respect of offence carried out by opposite party nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. 7. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 23.03.2026 is hereby modified to the extent that section 406 IPC is deleted and substituted with section 420 IPC and as such order dated 23.03.2026 through which cognizance of offence taken up by learned court of Civil Judge (SD), Chhata, Mathura in Case No.4170 of 2025 shall be treated and incorporated over the order-sheet in pursuance to sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. 8. The instant application stands allowed accordingly. May 6, 2026 Saif NA528 No. 16221 of 2026 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad