Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4467 (ALL)

Balwant Singh v. State Of U. P.

2026-04-07

Achal Sachdev, Siddhartha Varma

body2026
JUDGMENT : Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2026 : 1. This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the Review Application. 2. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the Review Application within the period of limitation. 3. The application is, accordingly, allowed. Order on the Review Petition : 4. A First Information Report was lodged under sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3), 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on 12.10.2025 alleging that the petitioner had without declaring that his mother Smt. Radhika Singh had died, continued to run various institutions in the name of a dead person. A writ petition was filed being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.25002 of 2025 which was sworn on 29.10.2025. The writ petition came to be heard by this Court on 3.12.2025 and was dismissed with the following order :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 12.10.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 205 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S., Police Station- Pipari, District- Sonbhadra, and a direction to the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned first information report. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that a cognizable offence has been made out and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned first information report. 5. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. 6. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others , 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021 , no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report. 7. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021 , no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law." 5. In the meantime, it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per paragraph no.7 of the order, the petitioner had approached the Court for anticipatory bail which was numbered as 1171 of 2026. In the meantime, it has also been submitted that Yashwant Singh, the first informant had filed a writ petition being Writ-C No.28918 of 2025 wherein the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Sonbhadra was directed to look into the various contentions raised by various parties. This order was passed on 15.11.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner has further submitted that also a suit was filed by the first informant being Original Suit No.1689 of 2023 with regard to properties which were inherited by the petitioner by means of a will and in that suit the will was challenged. Today, learned counsel for the review petitioner has also produced an order dated 3.4.2026 which has been passed in some suit being Original Suit No.97 of 2025 filed by Radhika Memorial Trust in which the petitioner is a defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, states that because these facts, namely the filing of the suit and the filing of the writ petition, could not be brought to the notice of this Court, the order dated 3.12.2025 be reviewed and the writ petition be allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the first informant Shri Krishan Yadav has, however, opposed the review petition and has submitted that the writ petition was in fact filed by learned counsel Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh while the Review Petition has now been filed by Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey and Sri Ashutosh Mishra, Advocates and relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. reported in AIR 1997 SC 1005 ; a judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Review Application No.432 of 2023 decided on 31.10.2023 and upon a further Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vinita Bhatnagar vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2018 SCC OnLine All 6411 has submitted that if the review petition was not filed by the counsel who had argued the case earlier, then the review petition cannot be entertained. He further has submitted that if the writ petition is perused, it could be seen that the grounds taken were as follows :- "(a) Because on the basis of the aforesaid facts, the entire allegation levelled against the petitioner in the Application under Section 173(4) BNSS filed by the Respondent no.3 is totally false, frivolous and concocted, but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra without considering the real facts and circumstances of the case as well as without applying his judicial mind, allowed the Application u/s 173(4) BNSS vide his order dated 29.09.2025 by way of mechanical manner, which is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. (b) Because the respondent no.3 has filed a civil suit against the petitioner before the concerned court on 26.05.2025 and same is still pending till date. (c) Because regarding to the aforesaid dispute of the Samiti, the respondent no.3 has already filed a Writ petition no.28918 of 2025 (Yashwant Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), which is still pending till today. (d) Because the matter belongs to civil dispute regarding to the aforesaid Samiti, but respondent no.3 has given colour of the case as criminal case and only view of the harassment and torturing to the petitioner, lodged and alleged FIR against him only for grabbing the aforesaid Samiti, while petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged against him. (e) Because the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case, while he is innocent person. (f) Because the petitioner is law abiding person and belonging to well reputed society at large and there is no any criminal antecedent against him, except to the present false case. (g) Because the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the alleged case, while he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. (f) Because the petitioner is law abiding person and belonging to well reputed society at large and there is no any criminal antecedent against him, except to the present false case. (g) Because the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the alleged case, while he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. (h) Because from bare perusal of the entire evidence on record, no offence is made out against the petitioner under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3), 352 BNS. (i) Because in spite of these, concerned police has made pressure upon the petitioner for arresting him, due to this petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court for staying the arrest of the petitioner. (j) Because as per best knowledge of the petitioner, no charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner and investigation is going on till today. (k) Because the concerned police regularly harassing to the petitioner and his entire family members for arresting the petitioner, while petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. (l) Because the impugned F.I.R. is totally false, fabricated and concocted, nothing only abuse process of law only view to the harassment of the petitioner and action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and the impugned alleged F.I.r. is liable to quashed by this Hon'ble Court. (m) Because the entire proceedings have been initiated maliciously which are illusory, vexatious, scandalous and abuse of the process of the law and as such the entire proceedings are not tenable under law and thus the same are liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court." 8. Learned counsel for the first informant submits that the grounds as have been raised by the review petitioner today were not available to the petitioner at the time when the order dated 3.12.2025 was passed in the writ petition. What is more, learned counsel for the first informant submits that it could be seen that the writ petition was actually sworn in the month of October 2025 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which was passed in Writ-C No.28918 of 2025 on 15.11.2025, was not available to the petitioner at the time of the drafting of the writ petition. He, therefore, submits that the order dated 15.11.2025 was available to the petitioner on the date when the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.25002 of 2025 was being argued but it was never placed before the Court. Learned counsel for the first informant/respondent further submits that as per the order dated 3.12.2025, the petitioner had filed an application for the grant of anticipatory bail which was numbered as Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No.1171 of 2026 and, therefore, he submits that no interference be made in the instant Review Application. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that definitely the review petition has not been filed by the lawyer who had filed and argued the writ petition. Be that as it may, even if we ignore this issue, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.11.2025 was not placed before the Court on 3.12.2025 during the argument in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.25002 of 2025. Still further we are of the view that though a suit with regard to permanent injunction was mentioned in the writ petition but regarding it, no ground was raised at the time of the argument. Also, today the civil suit being Original Suit No.1689 of 2023 has been brought to our notice and this suit which was challenging a certain will of the father of the petitioner and his brother Yashwant Singh had no bearing to this case. We also find that even though various civil suits etc. might have been there in existence but the main allegation in the FIR was with regard to the fabrication of the signatures by the first informant of the mother of the petitioner who had died and, therefore, definitely it was a case where investigation was required and it had to be found out prima facie if the accused in the FIR was guilty. Still further, we are of the view that the petitioner had availed the remedy of filing an anticipatory bail and, therefore, no interference in the instant review petition is called for. 10. The Review Application is, accordingly, dismissed.