HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 678 of 2026 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is a social worker who filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the supporting affidavit was filed by Pankaj Kumar Singh, son of Sonveer Singh (the complainant). The revisionist, Sonveer Singh himself, did not file the supporting affidavit. 3. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the revisionist has no locus standi. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras. The criminal revision is liable to be rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 is unjustifiable and a non-speaking order passed without application of judicial mind; hence, it is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that the estimate report signed by the Village Development Officer (VDO), Sri Chandra Prakash, as per the Right to Information Act (RTI) reply dated 31.05.2025, raises doubts, as at that time Sri Kuldeep Singh was posted as VDO. 5. The revisionist, upon learning about the alleged embezzlement in the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan, made a complaint to higher officials. On his complaint, an explanation was sought by the Chief Development Officer (CDO), Hathras. It is alleged that there was collusion with the VDO, Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sonveer Singh .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Opposite Party(s) who submitted an estimate report to the bank in which the cost was not properly reflected and the required details were not filled, only to mislead higher officials. 6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, directed submission of a report to the CDO, Hathras, during the proceedings, wherein another estimate report was submitted by the respondent before the CDO. The CDO submitted the said estimate report before the court, in which every column was filled. 7. At the time of final arguments on the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., three estimate reports were available before the court below; however, this fact was ignored by the court below. The application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was rejected on the ground that the signature of the Village Pradhan was made by the complainant himself. It remains unexplained how and under what circumstances a blank estimate report was placed before the higher authorities without filling in the columns, which creates serious doubt. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that, even if the allegation regarding the signature of the Pradhan having been made by the complainant is taken to be true (though not admitted), a handwriting expert's report was warranted. However, no such report was obtained by the court below. The application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. has been rejected solely on the basis of the report submitted by the opposite parties, allegedly to save themselves by misleading the court below. 9. It is further submitted that the matter of a forged signature requires proper investigation by the police, and the persons responsible are liable to be prosecuted. The alleged forgery is also reflected in the bill vouchers placed before the court below, which were not filled with the amount and GST, yet payments were made by the officials in collusion with the Pradhan. 10. The revisionist sought information under the R.T.I. Act regarding the date from which construction of the Gram Panchayat Sachivalaya commenced. In this regard, there are material contradictions: under the R.T.I., the date was given as 25.07.2021, whereas in the explanation it was stated as 15.05.2021. It is further stated that the V.D.O., Sasni, informed that on 02.03.2021 a letter was signed for the supply of construction material, whereas the signature on the said letter bears the date 23.02.2021. It appears CRLR No. 678 of 2026 2 that, in an attempt to shield themselves from allegations of embezzlement, the officials made efforts to cover up the matter; however, this aspect was not considered by the court below. 11. It is also submitted that the entire proceeding relating to the construction of the Panchayat Bhawan was not conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. The tender process was neither completed as per norms nor properly invited or published on the notice board. The court below remained silent on this point as well. 12. The estimate produced before the court below bears the signatures of officials who were not posted at the relevant time, i.e., on 20.08.2020. Hence, clear-cut forgery has been alleged. The revision deserves to be allowed, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the law laid down by the Uttarakhand High Court in Asgar v. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 04 UK CK 0080. In that case, the common judgment and order dated 26.03.2003 was rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/IVth FTC, Haridwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2000. Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2003 was preferred by co-accused Asgar against the judgment and order dated 28.03.2003 passed by the same court, whereby the judgment and order of the trial court dated 07.12.2000 was affirmed. In that case, the accused was convicted under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C., along with Sections 4 and 10 of the U.P. Protection of Trees in Rural and Hill Areas Act, 1976. 14. It is mentioned in paragraph 5 of the said judgment that the accused, Rasheed Ahmad, was the Pradhan of his village during the relevant period of the Gram Sabha, from 04.06.1987 to 09.06.1987. The allegations against him were made by Saeed Ahmad, the Up-Pradhan/Deputy Headman of the village, by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that he, in active association with a wood contractor, Asgar (accused), had cut several hundred important green trees standing on Khasra Nos. 112, 168, and 169, owned by the Gram Sabha. Whereas, in the present case, the complainant/revisionist is an absolute stranger to the entire dispute and has filed an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. Hence, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of the judgment in Asgar (supra). 15. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied on the judgment of CRLR No. 678 of 2026 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka and Others, 2025 INSC 1282. In that case, the petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereas in the present matter the proceedings arise out of a criminal revision. The scope and limitations of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and those of a criminal revision are entirely different. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon paragraph no. 37 of the Sadiq (supra) case, which is quoted hereinbelow: "37. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the position of law enunciated in Madhao v State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615, wherein it was held that: 18. When a Magistrate receives a complaint he is not bound to take cognizance if the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence. The Magistrate has discretion in the matter. If on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the forwarding of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was primarily the duty of the police to investigate, he will be justified in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence itself. As said earlier, in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). However, if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to revert back to the pre- cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3)." 16. An affidavit in support of the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. is mandatory. The application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. has been rejected by the learned trial court. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist; however, he has not filed the supporting affidavit himself. The supporting affidavit has been filed by his son. 17. The complainant is an absolute stranger to the dispute and has filed the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. against the following persons: (1) Hapendra Singh present Gram Pradhan (ii) Chandra Prakash, the then Gram Panchayat Adhkari, Gram Panchayat Ajroi, (iii)the then A.D.O. Panchayat Sasni, (iv)the then Block Development Officer, Tehsil Sasni, District CRLR No. 678 of 2026 4 Hathras. (v), the then Junior Engineer (Rural) Engineering Department and (vi) present Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Smt. Niharika Singh (vii) and others all conspirators. Section 2(h) and section 174 of B.N.S.S. are as follows: "Section 2(h) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Sanhita, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation.—A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant." Section 173 (4)- Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1), may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate." 18. As per the allegations made in the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. by the complainant/revisionist, it appears that there was some misappropriation or embezzlement of funds and that neither a proper estimate nor proper construction was carried out. 19. The complainant is absolutely a stranger to the matter. He has filed the application against government officials in their official capacity. However, he has failed to establish his locus standi, as he did not hold any official post at the time of filing the application. A detailed report was submitted by the Chief Development Officer, which has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the present criminal revision. The said report, dated 30.06.2025, concludes that the allegations made by the revisionist do not have any substance. 20. The contention raised by learned counsel for the revisionist is that there was no need to call for any report; rather, the F.I.R. ought to have been registered and the matter investigated. 21. As per section 173(4) of B.N.S.S. without prejudice to the provisions CRLR No. 678 of 2026 5 contained in section 175, on the receipt of information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, which is made punishable for three years or more but less than seven years, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence,- (1) proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or (ii) proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case. Section 175(4).- Any Magistrate empowered under section 210, may, upon receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, order investigation, subject to— (a) receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him; and (b) after consideration of the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged. 22. Learned trial court had complied the due procedure as required under section 173(3) and section 174(4) of the B.N.S.S., 2023. Learned trial court did not find that a prima facie case is made out against the public servant and completed all the formalities required by the section 173 and 174 of the B.N.S.S. as mentioned hereinabove and passed the appropriate order in accordance with law. 23. There is neither any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 24. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. February 17, 2026 K.K. Maurya CRLR No. 678 of 2026 6 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad