Sanjeev Gaur And Another vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15843 of 2026

Sanjeev Gaur And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Naveen Kumar Srivastava, Shivanshu
Mehta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Atul Tej Kulshrestha, G.A.
AFR
Reserved on 22.5.2026
Delivered on 27.5.2026

Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Ms. Sakshi Srivastava, assisted by Sri Naveen Kumar Srivastava
and Sri Shivanshu Mehta, learned counsels appearing on behalf of applicants
and Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atul
Tej Kulshrestha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA
for State.
Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash entire
2.
proceedings of Case no. 415 of 2025 (State vs. Sanjeev Gaur) pending
before learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 5,
Allahabad in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 10.9.2025 as well as
cognizance order dated 17.9.2025 in Case Crime no. 167 of 2024 under
sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, PS- Cantt, District
Allahabad.
3. Entire proceeding of Case no. 415 of 2025 (State vs. Sanjeev Gaur)
arising out of Case Crime no. 167 of 2024 in pursuance to sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC, has been challenged on the specific grounds
taken up by learned counsel for applicants that both the applicants are the
partners in M/s Swear Health Care Pvt. Ltd. who extended letter of
authorization in favour of their one of the employee i.e. Rajesh Kumar son
of Sri Raghunath Verma resident of Mahanti Ka Purwa, Maharajganj,
Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh for filing affidavit, vakalatnama on behalf of M/s

NA528 No. 15843 of 2026
2
Swear Health Care Pvt. Ltd. at Allahabad High Court on dated 12.4.2024
which is appended along with instant affidavit in support of the Application
at page no. 164, but before that a Petition under Article under Section 227
no. 1997 of 2024 (M/s Anondita Healthcare and another vs. Faiz
Mohammad and 4 others) have already been filed before the letter of
authority issued at the behest of applicants in favour of Mr. Rajesh Kumar.
The specific allegation which is apparent from the narration of the FIR is
4.
against Rajesh Kumar along with applicants also and after conducting
detailed investigation, concerned Investigating Officer preferred charge
sheet against 4 accused wherein applicants are one of them. It is also
submitted that the entire allegations whatsoever has been put forward has
been investigated and it was found that co-accused namely Rajesh Kumar
preferred Petition under Article 227 no. 1997 of 2024 by way of putting
forged signature over vakalatnama and issued instruction to his counsel at
the behest of applicants for filing under the title of M/s Anondita Healthcare
and another whereas it is opposite party no. 2 who is the proprietor of M/s
Anondita Healthcare who never instructed any of the accused to prefer Writ
Petition on their behest at the same time, it is also apparent on face of record
that no vakalatnama has ever been executed at the behest of M/s Anondita
Healthcare by the informant at the stage of filing above mentioned Writ
Petition and the same has been procured, manufactured with the ulterior
motive by the person who is the co-accused, on the specific instructions so
issued by applicants as mentioned by learned counsel for opposite party no.
2.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in respect of the same
5.
allegation proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has already been initiated
by co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing order dated 13.3.2024 in
the aforesaid petition which is reproduced as under:
"1. Heard Shri Neeraj, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners
and Shri Prateek Kumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants
in application u/s 340 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner - M/S Anondita Health Care through its Proprietor Anupam
Ghosh has moved this application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. with the allegation that
the present petition has neither been filed by the applicant and has never

NA528 No. 15843 of 2026
3
authorized the Rajesh Kumar to file the present petition.
3. It has been stated by learned counsel for the applicants that Rajesh
Kumar, who has signed the petition and given the affidavit, was never
authorized by the applicant to file the present writ petition. It has also
been stated that Vakalatnama annexed along with petition was never
executed by the applicants. It has been further stated that applicant has not
engaged Shri Neeraj or any other Advocate to file the present petition.
Vakalatnama which is on the record has been identified by Shri Vaibhav
Mittal, Advocate (Reg. No.3594/98, Mobile No. 9412326013,
9899060924).
3. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to implead Mr. Vaibhav
Mittal, learned counsel, who has identified the Vakalatnama filed along
with this petition as well as deponent namely Rajesh as opposite parties to
the application.
4. Issue notice to the respondents/opposite parties in application u/s 340
Cr.P.C.
5. Steps be taken by the applicants in application u/s 340 Cr.P.C., within a
week.
6. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the application filed u/s
340 Cr.P.C.
7. Shri Neeraj, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has filed this
petition, shall be present before this Court on the next date when the
matter is listed.
8. List this matter on 15.4.2024.
9. Whenever the case is listed next, name of Shri Prateek Kumar,
Advocate be shown in the cause list.
10. Opposite parties may file their reply to the application filed u/s 340
Cr.P.C. before next date fixed. "
Over the said proceedings which is heavily relied upon by learned counsel
6.
for the applicant that two proceedings for same cause of action cannot be
permitted in the eye of law and as such summoning of the applicants
especially in Case Crime no. 167 of 2024 vide order dated 17.9.2025 passed
by learned concerned court is not permissible, since the proceedings has
already been initiated by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
13.3.2024 and the applicant may not be put for initiating prosecution again
which has been denied in catena of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex

NA528 No. 15843 of 2026
4
Court that no person can be put to trial and be convicted in shape of double
jeopardy.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that the entire prosecution arises
7.
out of an alleged forged vakalatnama and affidavit filed before this Court in
proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the
matter is squarely covered by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. and
cognizance could have been taken up only upon a complaint by the
concerned Court after following the mandatory procedure under Section 340
Cr.P.C. and in support of this argument she relied upon judgment rendered
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and another
.
Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another reported in 2005 AIR SC 2119
8. It is further submitted that admittedly, an application under Section 340
Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party no. 2 is already pending before this Court and
no finding regarding forgery has yet been recorded, despite this statutory
bar, the police has independently registered FIR and filed charge sheet,
rendering entire prosecution without jurisdiction. In the event this Court,
subsequently directs prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. the applicants
would effectively face prosecution twice for the same alleged act, offending
the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of
the Constitution.
It has also been argued that the prosecution's own documents demolish the
9.
allegations that the authority letter i.e. dated 12.4.2024 is being made part of
the Case Diary during the investigation that authorized co-accused Rajesh
Kumar to file vakalatnama and affidavit on behalf of M/s Swear Healthcare
Pvt. Ltd. and not on behalf of opposite party no. 2 or M/s Anondita
Healthcare and even from the date of authorization letter, the said writ
petition was already filed and disposed of. Even if the applicants authorized
co-accused Rajesh Kumar only to file petition on behalf of M/s Swear
Health Care and after that also the applicants had no role to play in this writ
petition. Even the Call Detail Records do not place the applicants at
Prayagraj/Allahabad on the date of filing the alleged writ petition, rather,
only co-accused Rajesh Kumar was present there. Applicant no. 1 is a retired
Group Captain of the Indian Air Force with no criminal antecedents. The
prosecution has failed to establish any wrongful gain, inducement or mens

NA528 No. 15843 of 2026
5
rea essential for offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
Even the Forensic Science Lab examination could not give any conclusive
opinion regarding the alleged signatures due to non-availability of original
documents. The prosecution is thus based merely on conjectures and
statements of co-accused, which have no substantive evidentiary value. The
dispute between the parties are admittedly a long-standing commercial
rivalry and the present proceedings are a clear abuse of criminal process to
give a civil dispute a criminal colour.
Learned counsel for applicants relied upon following judgments rendered
10.
by Hon'ble Supreme Court which are as under:
i.
Kapil Agarwal and others Vs. Sanjay Sharma and others reported in
2021 AIR(SC) 1241 , paragraph no. 6 :
" 6. However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an
abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass
the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in
accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
6.1 As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal
proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of
harassment. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings
amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing
pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings
can be quashed.
6.2 As held by this Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of
Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, Section 482 Cr.P.C. is prefaced with an
overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High
Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to
prevent an abuse of the process of any Court; or (ii) otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. Same are the powers with the High Court, when it
exercises the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution."

NA528 No. 15843 of 2026
6
ii.
Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and another etc reported in 2018
AIR (SC) 2434 , paragraph no. 25:
"25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute i.e.,
referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are
preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a
person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases,
making of a document is different than causing it to be made..."
iii. Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2009 (8) SCC
751.
iv. Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and

another reported in 2005 AIR SC 2119
11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2
while raising his arguments relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) wherein certain distinction
has been made by Hon'ble Apex Court and has been demonstrated in detail
by learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atul Tej Kulshrestha. The
distinction placed by learned Senior Counsel is firstly, the matters wherein
certain forgery has been made in the documents while preparation or
manufacturing before filing the same in Court of law and as such those
documents which are prepared outside of the Court will not come under the
ambit of custodial legacy. Secondly, the documents wherein the
manipulation, addition, alteration has been made which are under the
definition of custodial legacy and are available inside the Court. The
proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as submitted by learned Senior
Counsel will be permissible only in both the categories but the right
available in favour of opposite party no. 2 is to prefer FIR/complaint
wherein allegations are regarding the documents which have been prepared
before filing the same in court of law which is the case in hand and apparent
from the narration of the FIR.
12. Learned senior counsel for opposite party no. 2 also argued that the co-
accused Rajesh Kumar in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly
admitted that he was instructed by the applicants for filing the case before
this Court on behalf of M/s Anondita Health Care, however, the same is not

NA528 No. 15843 of 2026
7
denied by the applicants and as such the same amounts to admission by the
applicants. Further instead, the applicants admitted in para 42 of the affidavit
filed in support of instant case, that the filing of the petition in the name of
M/s Anondita Health Care was a bona fide mistake. Further the authority
letter dated 12.04.2024 is yet another attempt of the applicants to mislead
this Court as prior to issuing same, another authority letter was issued by the
applicants in favour of same Rajesh Kumar on 25.01.2024 (page 75 of the
counter affidavit) however same is consciously withheld by the applicants.
In the withdrawal application filed by the Rajesh Kumar on the instruction of
applicants in Matter under Article 227 no. 1997 of 2024 (M/s Anondita
Health Care and another Vs. Faiz Mohammad and others) it is nowhere
pleaded that the case was filed in the name of M/s Anondita Health Care was
a bona fide mistake.
13. Learned senior counsel for opposite party no. 2 contended that since the
false documents were prepared before filing case before this Court, as such
private complaint is maintainable and in support of this argument he relied
upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Iqbal Singh
Marwah (supra) , paragraph no. 23, 33 and case of Ashok Gulabrao
Bondre Vs. Vilas Madhukar Rao Deshmukh reported in 2023 (9) SCC
539 , paragraph no. 17.
He further submitted that since the offences are distinct, i.e. under
14.
Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and in the FIR lodged by opposite party no. 2, as such
both can proceed and are not hit by double jeopardy. In support of this
argument he relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of , paragraph no. 23, 24, 25, 26 and case
Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra)
of Vasanthi vs. Umesh G.D. reported in 2024 SCC Online 15256 ,
paragraph no. 3.6, 6.1, 8.1, 8.3, 8.5.
15. Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned AGA who defended the stand taken up by
the State submitted that once the person who signed the vakalatnama was not
authorized by opposite party no. 2 and at the same time who preferred the
petition under Article 227 no. 1997 of 2024, without having any instructions
issued by petitioner, the person is liable to be prosecuted and summoning
order issued by learned concerned court is having no infirmity. The person
who has been referred by learned AGA is the accused and the same has been

NA528 No. 15843 of 2026
8
summoned also. Sri Sandeep Kumar, further submitted that the authority
letter is the sole ground for implication of the applicants who authorized co-
accused to prefer affidavit and filing whatever is required at the behest of
applicants before this Court.
After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the
16.
parties and the grounds taken up through written submission submitted by
both the learned counsels, one thing is crystal clear that before initiative
taken up by opposite party no. 2 for lodging complaint in shape of
registration of FIR at Case Crime no. 167 of 2024 on dated 13.8.2024, the
matter in pursuance to Section 340 Cr.P.C. has already been taken up over
an application preferred under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 13.3.2024.
Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Atul Tej
17.
Kulshrestha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 although elaborated
attraction of sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC against the
applicants and tried to satisfy this Court over the issue that how two parallel
proceedings in pursuance to same allegation once initiated by co-ordinate
Bench of this Court over Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. preferred at
the behest of opposite party no. 2 and second in pursuant to Case Crime no.
167 of 2024 can proceed. The arguments, so raised by learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2, if taken into
consideration for justifying the entire proceedings which has been put under
challenge through instant application, will amount to contrary to the order
dated 13.3.2024 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court through which
proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has already been initiated wherein
after considering the issue involved therein reply to the application filed
under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has already been invited, the dates and events are
not at all disputed which clearly shows that in spite of order dated 13.3.2024
passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, opposite party no. 2 preferred
First Information Report which has been registered at Case Crime no. 167 of
2024 on dated 13.8.2024 i.e. much later to the order dated 13.3.2024 passed
by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
The distinction which has been argued by learned Senior Counsel
18.
appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in respect of fraud, forgery

NA528 No. 15843 of 2026
9
committed outside of the Court and if the same has been committed with the
documents available with the court specifically in terms of Section
195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. has already been answered by Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) wherein the accused was acquitted
on the ground of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C., but the facts of instant
matter is slightly different. In the instant matter it is the opposite party no. 2
who preferred an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before this Court
itself whereupon after preliminary satisfaction co-ordinate Bench of this
Court passed the order dated 13.3.2024 and there is hardly any dispute that it
is the opposite party no. 2 only who preferred FIR registered on dated
13.8.2024, meaning thereby two parallel proceedings for same cause of
action has already been opted by opposite party no. 2 and without waiting
for outcome of the first option availed by opposite party no. 2 in shape of
preferring application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. wherein the reply has
already been invited by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
13.3.2024 and the stage of inquiry directed by co-ordinate Bench of this
Court is yet to arrive on the basis of adjudication pending before this Court
in respect of the same documents which has been alleged as forged and
fictitious although preferred and prepared by other accused than the
applicants, during pendency of the adjudication by this Court, inquiry has
already been conducted by way of submitting charge sheet against the
applicants on dated 10.9.2025 whereupon cognizance of offence has been
taken up by learned concerned court. The option availed by opposite party
no. 2 for filing application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before this Court now
almost rendered infructuous since the second option availed by opposite
party no. 2 culminated up to the level of initiating trial against applicants
who have already been summoned vide order dated 17.9.2025 passed by
learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 5, Prayagraj
hence, the initial proceedings over an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
became redundant and virtually rendered infructuous, if the proceedings of
Case Crime no. 167 of 2024 shall be permitted to continue before learned
court concerned who took cognizance of offence and summoned the
applicants in respect of the same.
19. Herein the instant matter, once the proceedings has already been initiated
by co-ordinate bench of this Court over an application preferred at the behest
of opposite party no. 2 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. wherein objection has

NA528 No. 15843 of 2026
10
already been invited by the applicants in respect of the same issues/reference
of same documents which has been alleged to be forged, fictitious in shape
of vakalatnama, authority letter etc., the judicial discipline demands that
inquiry which has already been conducted by concerned Investigating
Officer in pursuance to Case Crime no. 167 of 2024 without considering that
the similar issue has already been raised by opposite party no. 2 before this
Court by way of filing application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. wherein no
direction has ever been issued for conducting inquiry and the matter is
pending only at the stage of exchange of pleadings and as such report
submitted after conducting inquiry in shape of charge sheet dated 10.9.2025,
seems to be bad in the eye of law since during inquiry this fact has never
been brought to the knowledge of the concerned Investigating Officer at the
behest of opposite party no. 2 being informant that proceeding under Section
340 Cr.P.C. has already been initiated before this Court for same cause of
action wherein the similar issue has been brought to the notice of this Court
at the behest of opposite party no. 2 and as such two parallel proceedings has
already been initiated and so far as the issue argued by learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 that complaint can be
filed by aggrieved person in respect of the documents if forged,
manufactured outside of the proceedings of the court as decided by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of is concerned, at the
Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra)
same time, the factual position of the instant matter has never been discussed
by Hon'ble Apex Court that which proceedings will prevail, if adopted by
complainant simultaneously by way of lodging FIR and preferring
Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before lodging FIR wherein High
Court invited objection after considering the application preferred at the
behest of the informant/applicant. The facts of instant matter is slightly
different in respect of the issue involved herein and the issue is as under:
"If an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. preferred by an
aggrieved person before High Court wherein objection has
been invited, justification of the proceedings initiated by the
same person after gap of considerable period of time by way
of lodging FIR for same issue, will be maintainable or not?"
20. The above mentioned issue is hereby answered that once the High Court
has already invited objection over an application preferred at the behest of

NA528 No. 15843 of 2026
11
opposite party no. 2 under Section 340 Cr.P.C., for similar set of facts and
allegations FIR which has been lodged by the same person later on to the
order passed by High Court through which objection has been invited
wherein inquiry has been conducted, charge sheet has been preferred and
cognizance of offence taken up along with the entire proceedings are not
permissible. Once the consideration has already been made by co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.3.2024 and the charge sheet
preferred before learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
no. 5, Prayagraj on dated 10.9.2025 whereupon cognizance of offence has
been taken up by learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court no. 5, Prayagraj on dated 17.9.2025 are hereby in fact rendering order
dated 13.3.2024 virtually infructuous and the same cannot be permitted
considering the judicial discipline that once the matter has already been took
up by High Court and invited objection over an Application under Section
340 Cr.P.C. on similar set of facts and on same allegations, inquiry has been
conducted and cognizance of offence has been taken up by subordinate court
and as such the arguments raised by Ms. Sakshi Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of applicants is quite convincing in respect of initiation
of the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. at the behest of opposite party
no. 2 wherein objection has been invited the same has to be given preference
over any proceedings whatsoever has been conducted by subordinate court
in respect of the same facts and allegations against the applicants.
In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, entire proceedings
21.
of Case no. 415 of 2025 (State vs. Sanjeev Gaur) arising out of Case Crime
no. 167 of 2024 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, PS-
Cantt, District Allahabad which includes charge sheet dated 10.9.2025,
cognizance/summoning order dated 17.9.2025 are hereby
set aside only in
respect of applicants herein.
The application u/s 528 BNSS stands accordingly.
22. allowed
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
May 27, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad