Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Used For Vengeance | Allahabad High Court Quashes Proceedings For Lack Of Evidence And Orders Statewide Reform In Charge-Sheet Practices
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Uttar Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar held that the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants were instituted without legal justification and lacked the essential elements required to proceed. The Court quashed the summoning order issued by the trial court and terminated the pending criminal action. In doing so, the Bench directed the Director General of Police and the Director General (Prosecution) to implement systemic reforms in investigation processes across the state. These included the preparation of offence-specific investigative checklists, compulsory prosecutorial scrutiny before filing of charge-sheets, targeted training modules for investigating officers, and uniform compliance mechanisms. The judgment further mandated that the directives be circulated among all police authorities and judicial officers for strict implementation.
The matter before the Court arose from allegations concerning commercial properties located at Ramganj, Sarai Hakeem Bannaderi in Aligarh district. The complainant alleged that his father owned four shops bearing numbers 7/11, 7/1, 7/2, and 7/8, while his mother owned two shops bearing numbers 7/11 and 7/4. It was claimed that Petitioner No. 3, who is the elder brother of the complainant’s father, in connivance with other applicants, executed two forged powers of attorney on 6 April 2023.
According to the complainant, one of the documents was purportedly signed by Amita Rani, the complainant's mother, authorizing Gaurav and his wife Priyanka to manage, sell, and appoint legal representatives concerning the shops. The second document was allegedly executed by Pradeep Kumar, the complainant's father, authorizing Subhash Chandra, his younger brother, to undertake similar actions regarding the same properties. The complainant further accused the applicants of restraining, abusing, and threatening him, endangering his safety and property.
Based on the complaint, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed, via order dated 10 January 2024, the registration of a First Information Report. Consequently, FIR No. 8/2024 was registered under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 341 (wrongful restraint), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh. The FIR named seven accused persons: Gaurav, Priyanka, Subhash Chandra, Saurabh, Ankur, Richa, and Priya—all related family members residing in Mahuwa Kheda, Aligarh.
The police conducted the investigation and completed it within 18 days. Based on their findings—including statements from the complainant, public witnesses, fruit sellers, a stamp vendor, the notary public, police officers on duty, and a review of CCTV footage—the Investigating Officer filed a closure report, concluding that no offence was made out. The report was based on the conclusion that the powers of attorney were unregistered photocopies not supported by valid seals or stamps and had not been used to execute any actual property transfer.
Aggrieved by the closure report, the complainant filed a protest petition, which the Magistrate allowed through an order dated 3 April 2024. The order resulted in the issuance of summons against all seven applicants. The protest petition was accompanied by an affidavit that annexed various documents, although many were not part of the original police record.
Challenging the summoning order, the applicants approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was contended that the protest petition and the trial court's acceptance thereof were contrary to law and that no ingredients of the alleged offences were made out. The applicants argued that the powers of attorney were unauthenticated photocopies, not registered with any authority, and had never been acted upon. It was further submitted that no illegal benefit had been derived from these documents and that no sale deed was executed based on the alleged authorizations.
The applicants also informed the Court that two civil suits—Original Suit Nos. 567 of 2016 and 568 of 2016—were already pending between the parties regarding the same properties, and that the criminal proceedings were being misused to exert pressure.
On the other hand, the complainant, represented through counsel, argued that the police investigation was biased and incomplete. It was alleged that the Investigating Officer failed to send the disputed documents for forensic examination and had not collected the specimen signatures of the complainant’s parents or of the alleged witnesses to the documents. The CCTV footage relied upon by the police had also not been sent to any forensic laboratory for authentication. The complainant contended that the investigating authorities deliberately avoided steps that could have established the documents as forged.
On 22 April 2024, the High Court directed the Additional Government Advocate to explain, through an affidavit by the Station House Officer, why the necessary forensic steps had not been taken. The Court sought detailed information including: (i) reasons for not obtaining specimen signatures of the alleged executors and witnesses; (ii) a list of cases assigned to the Investigating Officer since his posting; (iii) a rationale for concluding the investigation in 18 days; and (iv) a list of pending FIRs at the same police station.
The affidavits submitted by the S.H.O. and later by the S.S.P. were found unsatisfactory. Subsequently, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) was called upon to explain the lack of compliance, and further affidavits were filed to satisfy the Court’s directions.
During the hearing, it was brought to the Court’s notice that the complainant had failed to provide the original power of attorney documents to the police despite repeated notices issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The affidavits confirmed that no original documents had been received and that the complainant and his relatives had not cooperated with the investigation.
The Court also noted that no property had been transferred on the basis of the alleged documents and that the complainant, when directly questioned, failed to identify any property purportedly sold or encumbered using the alleged powers of attorney.
In view of these developments, the Court examined the entire record, including the police case diary, statements recorded during the investigation, and the procedural actions taken by the investigating team. The factual matrix, along with the procedural irregularities and contradictions in the complainant’s version, formed the backdrop against which the Court proceeded to analyze the legal issues involved.
The Court began by expressing concern over the factual and procedural foundation of the case. It “called upon learned A.G.A. to explain why the Investigating Officer has not taken the forensic and scientific assistance to determine the genuineness of a power of attorneys dated 06.04.2023 by way of an affidavit of S.H.O. P.S. Civil Lines explaining: (i) why no efforts were made to obtain specimen signatures of alleged executants and the witnesses; (ii) what are the other cases assigned to the Investigating Officer since his posting at Police Station Civil Lines; (iii) why this case was prioritized over other pending investigations; (iv) what was the date of submission of the protest petition and its acceptance; and (v) why the original of the alleged power of attorneys was not submitted during the investigation.”
It noted that the complainant had not submitted the original documents and that the investigation proceeded on the basis of photocopies. The Court “noted that the complainant was given notices under Section 94 of the BNSS, 2023, but failed to produce the original documents despite multiple opportunities.”
The Court recorded that “the learned Magistrate, without prima-facie verifying the authenticity of the alleged forged document or properly perusing its contents, directed the registration of an FIR and later accepted the protest petition.”
It observed that the protest petition and summoning order were based on “materials not part of the police case diary or the investigation, including privately obtained reports and affidavits.”
“The entire futile exercise was first undertaken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and subsequently by the Police.”
The Court recorded: “The original copy of the purported forged power of attorney—which is the core issue in dispute—has never surfaced, nor has it ever been acted upon by either party. No property was ever transferred or even attempted to be transferred on the basis of this alleged forged document.”
Upon direct questioning by the Court, “the complainant remained entirely silent on which property was allegedly sold or transferred on the basis of the forged documents.”
The Court stated that “the investigation was not fair and has been conducted with ulterior motive.”
On the issue of perfunctory investigation, the Court quoted from the Supreme Court’s decision in Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, (2024) 6 SCC 758: “The mandatory requirement to be complied with by the Investigating Officer in the police report/charge-sheet as laid down in Section 173 Cr.P.C., more particularly sub section (2) thereof... It is hereby directed that the report of police officer on the completion of investigation shall contain inter alia: (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170.”
The Court quoted Sharif Ahmed and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726: “The investigating officer is obliged to act as per the Police Manual and known canons of practice while being diligent, truthful and fair in his/her approach and investigation... He is expected to examine the materials from all angles.”
It cited from the three-judge bench in Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 6 SCR 1:
“In the event, there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground that an offence appears to have been committed and the person committing such offence has been identified, the investigating officer is obliged to record his opinion in that regard.”
The Court recorded that “details of the offence are required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e., in the course of the trial.”
It stated that “a charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It is an opinion or intimation of the Investigating Officer to the Court concerned that on the material collected during the course of investigation, an offence appears to have been committed by the particular person or persons, or that no offence appears to have been committed.”
Citing K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655, the Court noted:
“The Investigating Officer is only required to collect material to find out whether the offence alleged appears to have been committed. In the course of the investigation, he may examine the accused... but to state that after collection of all material the Investigating Officer must give an opportunity to the accused and call upon him to account... would be elevating the Investigating Officer to the position of an enquiry officer or a judge.”
The Court expressed dismay that “chargesheets are being filed in a template format without sufficient material enabling the Courts to come to a reasonable conclusion that the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet are made out prima-facie.”
It recorded: “The police investigations heavily rely upon physical evidence found at the scene of the crime... however, the ability to preserve and scientifically analyse was limited, which often led to heavy dependence on eye-witness’ testimony.”
“Confessions are often regarded as the most conclusive form of evidence, however, unfortunately, this practice gave rise to widespread use of coercion and torture in police custody.”
The Court remarked: “In the absence of modern forensic science techniques… police officers often lack the necessary training to deal with complex criminal cases, digital evidence, and new age crime such as cyber-crime.”
On the new criminal law framework, it recorded: “In 2023, the Indian Parliament passed three landmark bills... These laws came into effect on July 1, 2024... While these legislative changes aim to provide a more efficient legal framework, their success largely depends on the capability of law enforcement agencies to enforce these laws effectively.”
It stated: “There is an urgent need to enhance police training to align with these changes... The training programme must include modules on rights of victim and accused, gender sensitization, and technological tools for crime investigation.”
On institutional response, the Court noted: “The Director General of Police (Prosecution) has also submitted that a comprehensive checklist has been prepared for each of the 41 categories of offences commonly encountered in criminal law. This checklist is 390 pages long and has been compiled in consultation with subject experts, prosecution officers and forensic professionals.”
It added: “The entire training material—filed before this Court in five volumes comprising 1,282 pages—includes handbooks, SOPs, flowcharts, formats, and statutory checklists.”
The Court directed that “the material be restructured into self-contained modules for dissemination and implemented as a regular part of police training curricula at district and zonal levels.”
The Court noted: “It is pertinent to note that the complainant neither filed a counter-affidavit nor actively participated in the police investigation, despite having appeared before the Court both in person and through counsel.”
The Court held: “Upon consideration of the facts and legal submissions, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings has been manifestly attended with mala-fide and is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the petitioners and with the view to spite them due to private and personal grudge. The Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue.”
The Court concluded: “Accordingly, I find merit in the submissions advanced by Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants. The impugned summoning order is hereby set aside. Consequently, the proceedings... are quashed. However, liberty is granted to the complainant/respondent no. 2 to approach the police in accordance with law, in the event that any incriminating material surfaces establishing the essential ingredients of cheating or forgery against the applicants.”
The Court stated: “Before parting with the judgment, I deem it appropriate to place on record my appreciation for the meticulous and dedicated efforts put forth by the Director General of Police (Prosecution) and his team in formulating a comprehensive checklist to assist Investigating Officers.”
It continued: “This meticulous exercise reflects their commitment to enhancing the quality and consistency of criminal investigations. I am confident that the Directorate of Prosecution will continue its dedicated efforts to periodically review and update the checklist, ensuring it remains dynamic and responsive to the evolving challenges faced by Investigating Officers, especially in the context of forensic, scientific, and cyber investigations under the new legal framework.”
The Court allowed the application and set aside the summoning order issued by the trial court. All proceedings arising out of the impugned criminal complaint were quashed. However, liberty was granted to the complainant to approach the police in accordance with law should any material surface in the future that establishes the essential elements of cheating or forgery against the applicants.
In addition to this case-specific relief, the Court issued a series of directions to reform investigation and charge-sheet practices in the state.
The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and the Director General (Prosecution) were directed to ensure the creation of a structured, need-based training program for police officials engaged in investigation. This program was to be specifically tailored for constables, head constables, sub-inspectors, and inspectors. Existing training content was to be restructured into modular, self-contained booklets that address distinct offence categories and procedures relevant under the new criminal law framework.
Charge-sheets submitted before Magistrates were required to include complete and specific details in Column-16. These include but are not limited to: the names and roles of complainant and accused, nature of allegations, arrest status, witness identities, scientific and forensic material collected, digital and documentary evidence, compliance with relevant statutory notices, and all investigative steps taken. These entries must be sufficient to allow a Magistrate to assess whether a prosecutable case has been made out.
It was directed that no charge-sheet shall be submitted unless it has undergone prosecutorial review. In compliance with earlier departmental instructions, the Investigating Officer must first route the draft report through the Circle Officer and secure certification from the designated Prosecution Officer.
In cases where the alleged offence carries punishment of life imprisonment or death, the draft charge-sheet must be reviewed through the office of the Commissioner of Police or the Senior Superintendent of Police. This review function may not be delegated to subordinate officers.
The Director General (Prosecution) was instructed to issue detailed supervisory guidelines to ensure timely review of charge-sheets by all Prosecution Officers. Charge-sheets must be submitted to the trial court along with a paginated index of all annexures, including documentary evidence, forensic reports, procedural notices, and summaries of witness statements.
Before filing, the Investigating Officer must record in the case diary that the report has been prepared in accordance with these directives and prior circulars issued by the D.G.P.
In the event that any charge-sheet is submitted in violation of the above protocol, the trial Magistrate shall promptly notify the Commissioner of Police or the Senior Superintendent of Police and forward the matter to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, for appropriate departmental action.
Responsibility for compliance rests primarily with the Station House Officer of the concerned police station, who shall be held accountable for submitting any report that does not meet the prescribed procedural standards.
All Commissioners of Police and Senior Superintendents of Police are required to submit monthly compliance reports to the Director General of Police and the Director General (Prosecution). These reports must certify that all charge-sheets filed in the reporting period have complied with the procedural safeguards set out in this judgment.
To ensure institutional compliance, the Court directed the Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to issue a formal Office Memorandum or Circular reaffirming the binding nature of these directives and implementing them across all police and prosecutorial departments in the state.
The Registrar (Compliance) was instructed to transmit a certified copy of the judgment to the Director General of Police and the Director General (Prosecution) for immediate implementation.
A copy of the judgment was also directed to be sent to the Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to ensure enforcement of compliance at the administrative level.
Further, the Registrar General of the High Court was directed to forward the judgment to all District Judges in the state. Each District Judge shall ensure that the judgment is circulated to every Judicial Officer under their supervision. Attention is to be given to ensuring that trial courts do not entertain charge-sheets filed without prosecutorial review, indexing, or case diary endorsements.
The Court disposed of the application in accordance with these directions.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri N.I. Zafri, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Gaurav Pundir, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate for the complainant; Shri Hitesh Kumar Mishra, Government Advocate, Shri J.K. Upadhyay, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Subhash Chandra and Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:81930
Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 12482 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar
[Read/Download order]
