Sanatan Dharm Rakshapeeth And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3267 of 2026
Sanatan Dharm Rakshapeeth and another
…..Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Satendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite
: Ashutosh Kumar Sand, G.A.,
Party(s)
Mohit Singh, Ravi Kumar
Singh
A.F.R.
Reserved on:-10.8.2026
Delivered on:-3.9.2026
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Ms. Rreena N. Singh and Mr. Satendra Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Manish Goyal,
learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Pankaj
Saxena, learned A.G.A. for State, Sri Ashutosh Kumar
Sand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri Ravi
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.3.

2
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
2. The present criminal revision is preferred by
revisionist for quashing the order dated 6.6.2025 passed by
Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), First/Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge M.P./M.L.A., Mathura in
Misc. Application No.1023 of 2025, Kaushal Kishor Thakur
Ji Vs. Suresh Khanna, under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S.
2023, Police Station-Vrindavan, District-Mathura and the
application of revisionist was to lodge first information
report and investigate the matter against opposite party
no.2-Suresh Khanna.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that
by means of impugned order dated 6.6.2025, the
application filed by revisionist before court of first instance
was rejected on the ground of jurisdiction. An application
under Section 175(3) BNSS was preferred by revisionist
before court of first instance for lodging of first information
report against opposite party no.2, (who is a Cabinet
Minister in the State of U.P.) for interfering in investigation
arising out of a first information report dated 7.4.2022.
Learned counsel for revisionist has referred to letter dated
16.7.2024 by which opposite party no.2 is alleged to have
instructed Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home,
Government of U.P. to take necessary action on application
of one Shulbha Singhal (wife of opposite party no.3, who is
main accused in first information report dated 7.4.2022).
The letter dated 16.7.2024 was written at Lucknow where
office of opposite party no.2 is situated and investigation
arising out of first information report dated 7.4.2022 is
going on at Meerut. However, the investigation in previous
first information report 7.4.2022 is arising out of a property
situated at Vrindavan, District Mathura.

3
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
4. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that as per
allegation in previous first information report dated
7.4.2022, it is alleged that opposite party no.3 was
instrumental in recording the name of his father in the
disputed property, which belongs to the revisionist no.1. A
forged will has come into picture in respect of which
forensic examination was conducted at Forensic Science
Laboratory, Agra and report was submitted to Meerut
Vigilance department. On account of aforesaid facts, charge
sheet was submitted in the previous first information report
and opposite party no.3 has been summoned by court at
Meerut.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for
revisionist that letter dated 16.7.2024 written by opposite
party no.2 would amount to interference in investigation.
The interference at the behest of Ministers specifically
barred by judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case
of Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India, 1998 (1) SCC 226
and Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P., 2014 (2) SCC 1 and
submits that it is not in dispute that the offence was not
committed in Mathura and was committed at Lucknow.
However, learned counsel for revisionist relies upon Section
199 of BNSS, 2023 to submit that consequence of aforesaid
offence ensues at Mathura, as a result of same, the
application under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 was
preferred before the court at Mathura.
6. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that offence
under Sections 12 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act
would be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the

4
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
case along with Section 61, 45 and 60 of BNS, 2023 in
respect of alleged act of opposite party no.2 of writing letter.
7. Learned counsel for revisionist further submits that
prior in point of time (presenting the aforesaid application
before the court of first instance), a letter was written on
17.2.2025 to the SSP, Mathura, which is at page 158 of
paper book. The consequence of offence ensue at Mathura
and therefore, the trial court erred in law in rejecting
application filed by revisionist and as such revision is liable
to be allowed. The consequences of alleged act of opposite
party no.2 are delay and interference in pending
investigation arising out of first information report dated
7.4.2022.
8. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned counsel for State
has opposed the present revision and stated that the court
at first instance has rightly passed the impugned order. In
fact, no offence is made out against the opposite party no.2.
The disputed letter dated 16.7.2024, which is at page 131
of the paper book does not carve out any offence. The
aforesaid letter only forwards letter written by wife of
opposite party no.3 to the Additional Chief Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of U.P. for taking
necessary action in accordance with law and therefore, it
cannot be said that there is any interference in the
investigation. More particularly, when the charge sheet has
been submitted on 4.10.2024 in respect of the previous
first information report dated 7.4.2022 before the court
concerned and cognizance has been taken on 7.10.2024
and the opposite party no.3 has been summoned.

5
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
9. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits
that no consequence ensue in respect of letter written by
opposite party no.2. Therefore, revisional court has
committed no error in passing the impugned order. He
submits that mere place of property, which is subject
matter of previous first information report cannot be a
ground for holding jurisdiction of court at Mathura. The
jurisdiction of court is generally where the offence is
committed is settled principle of law.
10. Sri A.K. Sand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2
has adopted the arguments of learned Additional Advocate
General. He further submits that trial court has passed
appropriate order as the trial court has no jurisdiction in
the matter. It is submitted that in pursuance to letter
dated 16.7.2024 written by opposite party no.2, a letter was
written by Under Secretary, Government of U.P. on
24.10.2024 forwarding application for further investigation
that is after the submission of charge sheet on 4.10.2024 in
the previous first information report dated 7.4.2022 and
the consequential congnizance on 7.10.2024 by the court
concerned. Therefore, there is no consequence ensue in
pursuance to letter of opposite party no.2.
11. It is alleged by revisionist, that initially a first
information report dated 7.4.2022 was lodged against several
persons, including opposite party no.3-Shri Nirvikar
Singhal, under Sections 120B, 166, 420, 467, 468, 471 of
I.P.C. and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The aforesaid first information report is lodged by Vigilance
Department at Police Station-Meerut Sector (Vigilance

6
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
Department), whereby it is alleged that opposite party no.3
has committed criminal act of registering the place/property
of Sant Kutti of Manav Seva Sangh Ashram, Vrindavan in
name of his father, namely, Jagdish Prasad in the records of
Municipal Council, Vrindavan, Mathura, despite knowing
that property belongs to Manav Seva Sangh. The opposite
party no.3 has also got prepared a forged will of Kumari
Mukteshwari, who is a resident of Manav Seva Sangh and
close aid of Nirvikar Singhal with intention of usurping the
Sant Kutti situated at Ashram Manav Seva Sangh and
causing loss to property of Manav Seva Sangh Ashram by
transferring property and electricity connection of Sant Kutti
in name of his father, namely, Jagdish Prasad and thereby
knowingly, harassed and participated in criminal act and
opposite party no.3 is guilty of being involved in a criminal
conspiracy against Manav Seva Sangh Ashram.
12. The opposite party no.2 was not named in the
abovementioned first information report dated 7.4.2022.
Further, it is not shown by counsel for revisionist that
opposite party no.2 is an accused in previous first
information report dated 7.4.2022 or subsequent charge
sheet submitted. It is also not in dispute between the parties
that in pursuance to abovementioned first information
report dated 7.4.2022, investigation was proceeded at
Meerut and charge sheet was submitted on 4.10.2024
against opposite party no.3 before the court at Meerut and
further court at Meerut has taken cognizance and
summoned accused-opposite party no.3 by summoning
order dated 7.10.2024 before Court of Special Judge, Anti-
Corruption Act, Meerut.

7
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
13. It is further alleged in above-mentioned application
that Rakesh Kumar is real brother of opposite party no.3
(opposite party no.3 is an accused in abovementioned first
information report dated 7.4.2022) and Rakesh Kumar is
friend of opposite party no.2 (opposite party no 2 is resident
of Shahjahanpur). Rakesh Kumar made a representation to
opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 had written a
letter questioning the working of Vigilance department of
Agra and State Forensic Laboratory, Agra and got the
investigation (in respect of first information report dated
7.4.2022) transferred from Agra vigilance to Meerut vigilance
and express doubts on investigation of State Forensic
Laboratory, Agra. The opposite party no.2 further
recommended (in writing) that verification of signature on
disputed document be conducted by Central Forensic
Science Laboratory, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, instead of
State Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra due to which
investigation got delayed for two years. Further, on the
representation of Mrs. Salbha Singhal (wife of Nirvikar
Singhal-opposite party no.3) for second time raise written
doubts on central forensic investigation agency at Agra by
writing letter and intervene under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.,
1973 to delay the investigation. It is also alleged that opposite
party no.2 is a Cabinet Minister and is not associated with
Manav Seva Sangh Ashram and is a clear case to intervene
and delay the investigation by opposite party no.2.

14. The revisionist preferred an application under section
175 (3) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 (for
brevity hereinafter referred to as “BNSS, 2023”) before the
court of Special ACJM/MP MLA, Mathura with a prayer for
registering a first information report against opposite party

8
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
no.2 under Sections 201, 198, 61 and 45-60 of B.N.S., 2023
and Sections 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 17A of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and other relevant provisions. The
aforesaid application of revisionist also prayed to conduct
fair and impartial investigation to ascertain the extent of
interference & corruption and to ensure that accused faces
legal consequences for obstructing justice and violating the
rule of law. The provision of Section 175 (3) of BNSS, 2023
is quoted hereinbelow:-
“(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section
210 may, after considering the application
supported by an affidavit made under sub-
section (4) of section 173, and after making
such inquiry as he thinks necessary and
submission made in this regard by the police
officer, order such an investigation as above-
mentioned.”
15. The Court of first instance by impugned order dated
6.6.2025 has rejected the application of revisionist (under
section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023) on the ground that court
concerned at Mathura has no jurisdiction to entertain the
said application of revisionist, as the act of opposite party
no.2 that is complained of, was in respect of a first
information report registered at Meerut & Investigating
Officer is of Meerut and further investigation is going on at
Meerut and opposite party no 2 is resident of Shahjahanpur
and is working at Lucknow.
16. The challenge to impugned order dated 6.6.2025 being
raised by learned counsel for revisionist is that immovable
property forming part of dispute in previous first information

9
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
report dated 7.4.2022 against opposite party no.3 is situated
in Vrindavan, Mathura. Further, consequences of delay of
investigation and interference in investigation originated
within territorial limits of District Mathura. It is also
submitted on behalf of revisionist that under Section 199 of
BNSS, 2023, the consequences of act of opposite party no.2
ensued at Mathura and as such court at Mathura has
jurisdiction to entertain the abovementioned application of
revisionist.
17. It is to be seen that under criminal law, jurisdiction to
try an offence is ordinarily vests with court within whose
local jurisdiction, the offence was committed as per section
197 of BNSS, 2023. As per revisionist, it is alleged that
opposite party no.2 (who is alleged to be a Cabinet Minister
in State of Uttar Pradesh) has written a letter dated
16.7.2024 to Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Uttar Pradesh and thereby interfered and
delayed the investigation of first information report dated
7.4.2022. Further, opposite party no.2 by means of
abovementioned letter dated 16.7.2024 has forwarded
application of wife of opposite party no.3 (opposite party no.3
is an accused in previous first information report dated
7.4.2022) for investigation of disputed document/will by
Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh. The Under Secretary, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, subsequently, by order dated 24.10.2024 issued
instructions to initiate process for further investigation
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., 1973, for sending the disputed
document to Bhopal for verification in accordance with law,
as a result of same, investigation (in previous first
information report dated 7.4.2022) got delayed for two years.

10
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
18. Under Section 2 (24) of BNS, 2023 the term “offence”
denotes a thing which is made punishable by BNS, 2023 or
other law. Section 2(24) of BNS, 2023 is quoted hereinbelow:-
““offence”.—Except in the Chapters and
sections mentioned in sub-clauses (a) and (b),
the word “offence” means a thing made
punishable by this Sanhita, but––
(a) in Chapter III and in the following sections,
namely, sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of
section 8, sections 9, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57,
58, 59, 60, 61, 119, 120, 123, sub-sections (7)
and (8) of section 127, 222, 230, 231, 240, 248,
250, 251, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, sub-
sections (6) and (7) of section 308 and sub-
section (2) of section 330, the word “offence”
means a thing punishable under this Sanhita,
or under any special law or local law; and
(b) in sub-section (1) of section 189, sections
211, 212, 238, 239, 249, 253 and sub-section
(1) of section 329, the word “offence” shall have
the same meaning when the act punishable
under the special law or local law is punishable
under such law with imprisonment for a term of
six months or more, whether with or without
fine;”
19. Once law declares a thing to be punishable under
BNS, 2023 or any other law then same is treated as an
offence under criminal law. Under section 4 of BNSS, 2023
it is mandated that all offences under BNS, 2023 shall be
investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with

11
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
according to provisions contained in BNSS, 2023. Further,
section 6 of BNSS, 2023 envisages constitution of hierarchy
of criminal courts namely (i) Courts of Session; (ii) Judicial
Magistrate of First Class; (iii) Judicial Magistrates of Second
class; (iv) Executive Magistrate. As per section 7 of BNSS,
2023, state is divided into session divisions and further
section 9 of BNSS, 2023 provides that in every district there
shall be established as many Courts of Judicial Magistrate
of first class and of second class as the State government in
consultation with the High Court by notification specify.
Section 12 of BNSS, 2023, further provides that subject to
control of High Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may
from time to time define the local limits of area(s) within
which the Magistrate appointed under section 9 or under
section 11 of BNSS, 2023 may exercise all or any of powers
with which they are respectively been vested under the
BNSS, 2023.
20. The revisionist has preferred application under section
175(3) of BNSS, 2023 before the court concerned for
direction of registering a first information report against
opposite party no.2. The said provision envisages that any
Magistrate empowered may order investigation referrable to
section 175(1) of BNSS, 2023. Section 175(1) of BNSS, 2023
refers to power of Officer in-Charge of police station to
investigate cognizable offence, which a court having
jurisdiction over the local area within limits of such station
would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions
of Chapter XIV of BNSS 2023 . Section 175(1) of BNSS, 2023
is quoted herein below:-
“(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may,
without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any

12
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction
over the local area within the limits of such station
would have power to inquire into or try under the
provisions of Chapter XIV:
Provided that considering the nature and gravity
of the offence, the Superintendent of Police may
require the Deputy Superintendent of Police to
investigate the case.”
21. The power under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 is akin
to power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said power of
Magistrate under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 is qualified
by the words “order such investigation as abovementioned”
and, therefore, the power of court concerned under section
175(3) of BNSS, 2023 is limited to investigation permissible
under section 175(1) of BNSS, 2023. In Central Bureau of
Investigation through S.P. Vs State of Rajasthan – 2001
(3) SCC 333 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 6 has
held that what is contained in sub-section (3) of Section 156,
is the power to order investigation referred to in sub-section
(1), because the words "order such an investigation as above-
mentioned" in sub-section (3) are unmistakably clear as
referring to the other sub-section.
22. It is further to be noted that jurisdiction under section
175(3) read with section 175(1) of BNSS, 2023 of court
concerned is, therefore, confined to permissible limits
prescribed under chapter XIV of BNSS, 2023. The
jurisdiction of magistrate/court to try an offence is defined
in chapter XIV of BNSS, 2023 and, therefore, power of
magistrate/court under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 is
exercisable in respect of offence which the Magistrate can try

13
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
as per chapter XIV of BNSS, 2023. Under section 175(3) of
BNSS, 2023, the power of Magistrate is jurisdictionally
anchored to Section 175(1)/Chapter XIV of BNSS, 2023 in
terms that it cannot be used to compel an investigation, the
local police could never have lawfully undertaken and cannot
be directed at a police officer outside the Magistrate's own
territorial jurisdiction. A Magistrate who could not himself
try or commit the offence for want of territorial jurisdiction
is, equally incompetent to set the investigative machinery of
police in motion for an offence wholly outside that
jurisdiction in terms of section 175 of BNSS, 2023 read with
chapter XIV of BNSS, 2023.
23. In
Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and others:
2010:AHC:113134 this court in respect of territorial
jurisdiction of Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C has
held as under:-
“In the aforesaid case of Rasiklal (supra) no
doubt the Apex Court has held that the
question of territorial jurisdiction of the
Magistrate is a matter when case is filed in
the court. There is no justification to consider
the question of territorial jurisdiction at the
stage of investigation. But the position in this
case is somehow different, the jurisdiction of
the Magistrate to entertain the application
u/s 156 (3) CrPC and passing of an
appropriate order thereon is involved in this
case. U/s 156 (3) CrPC only the Magistrate
having jurisdiction to take cognizance u/s
190 has power to direct for police
investigation. The Magistrate having no

14
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
territorial jurisdiction to inquire into or try an
offence as contemplated in various sections
incorporated in chapter XIII of CrPC, cannot
be said to have power to take cognizance u/s
190 CrPC in regard to the offence or offences
disclosed in the application moved u/s 156(3)
CrPC. Therefore, while considering an
application u/s 156 (3) the Magistrate is
required to see whether he has jurisdiction
under section 190 CrPC to take cognizance of
the offence or offences disclosed in the
application filed under section 156(3) CrPC,
and if the answer is in negative, the power
under section 156(3) CrPC cannot be invoked.
Once an order under section 156(3) CrPC is
passed the police cannot deny to make
investigation on the ground that it has no
power to investigate on account of lack of
territorial jurisdiction and this is the principle
what has been propounded in Rasiklal's
case”
24. The term “offence” has also been defined under
section 2(q) of BNSS, 2023 to mean any act or omission made
punishable by any law for the time being in force. As per
revisionist, opposite party no.2 being Cabinet Minister in
State Government is alleged to have issued letter dated
16.7.2024 to Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The aforesaid letter
dated 16.7.2024 is annexed at page 131 of paper book. The
aforesaid letter refers to application of Smt. Salbha Singhal
(wife of opposite party no 3) whereby aforesaid Smt. Salbha

15
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
Singhal has requested for verification of signature on
disputed will from a reputed organization. The said
application of Smt. Salbha Singhal was addressed to
Principal Secretary (Home). The aforesaid application of Smt.
Salbha Singhal was forwarded by opposite party no.2 to
Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department for necessary
action in accordance with law . The extracts of
abovementioned letter dated 16.7.2024 of opposite party no
2 is quoted herein below :-

सुरेश कुमार खन्ना कार्यालय मुख्य भवन
-84/85
कक्ष संख्या
( ) 0522-2238061
मंत्री दूरभाष का०
0522-2213304
वित्त एवं संसदीय कार्य विभाग
( ) 0522-2239753
आ०
- : [email protected]
ई मेल
: 16-7-2024
दिनांक
,
अपर मुख्य सचिव गृह विभाग।
,
कृपया श्रीमती शालभा सिंघल पत्नी श्री निर्विकार सिंघल
-40, , -1, ,
निवासिनी पुष्दीप एन्कलेव फेस सिकन्दरा बोदला रोड आगरा के
संलग्न प्रार्थना पत्र का अवलोकन करने का कष्ट करें जिसके द्वारा इन्होंने
, ,
सतर्कता अधिष्ठान मेरठ सेक्टर मेरठ द्वारा पंजीकृत अभियोग में नामित अपने
पति के विरूद्ध विषयगत वसीयत पर वसीयतकर्ता द्वारा किये गये हस्ताक्षर की
सत्यता की जाँच पुनः किसी प्रमाणिक संस्था से कराकर जांच एवं अभियोग
समाप्त कराये जाने का अनुरोध किया है।
-
अतः आपसे अपेक्षा है कि संलग्न प्रार्थना पत्र में वर्णित तथ्यों के दृष्टिगत
प्रकरण में नियमानुसार आवश्यक कार्यवाही कराने का कष्ट करें।
.
संलग्नकः यथोपरि। ह०अपठनीय
.16.07.2024
25. It is alleged that opposite party no.2 by means of
above-mentioned letter dated 16.7.2024 has interfered and
delayed pending investigation. It is not in dispute that official
correspondence/letter dated 16.7.2024 of opposite party
no.2 was issued from Lucknow and was addressed to officer

16
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
of government department at Lucknow. As per counsel for
revisionist, letter dated 16.7.2024 written by opposite party
no.2 pertains to investigation being carried on against
opposite party no.3 (in respect of previous first information
report dated 7.4.2022 lodged at Meerut against opposite
party no.3). However, the property in dispute (in previous
first information report) is situated at Mathura.

26. As per revisionist, the alleged act of writing letter
dated 16.7.2024 by opposite party no.2 (who is resident of
Shahjanpur & is working at Lucknow) in respect of
investigation arising out of first information report dated
7.4.2022 is pending at Meerut. Further, it is claimed by
counsel for revisionist that alleged act of writing letter dated
16.7.2024 by opposite party no.2 has the effect that
verification of signature on disputed will was taken to
Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal and the same has
resulted in delay and interference in investigation.
27. A perusal of application preferred under section 175
(3) of BNSS, 2023 would go to show that in aforesaid
application it is not alleged by revisionist that offence has
been committed by opposite party no.2 at Mathura. It is
further to be seen that subject matter of previous first
information report against opposite party no.3 is a property
which is situated at Vrindawan, Mathura. However, aforesaid
first information report dated 7.4.2022 constitute a separate
offence in respect of which first information report has been
lodged at Meerut. The allegation against opposite party no.2,
(which is alleged to constitute a separate offence) is only to
the effect that opposite party no.2 has interfered in
investigation by writing letter dated 16.7.2024, (forwarding

17
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
the application preferred by wife of opposite party no.3 to the
Government Officer at Lucknow to proceed in accordance
with law).
28. The “offence” has been defined under section 2(q) of
BNSS, 2023 to mean any act or omission made punishable
by any law for the time being in force. The revisionist
claiming interference by opposite party no.2 to previous
investigation (which is pending at Meerut) as an act which is
an offence.
29. On a pointed query being made by this court to
learned counsel for revisionist as to the offence attracted
against opposite party no.2 in respect of alleged act of
opposite party no.2, learned counsel for revisionist has
stated that opposite party no.2 has committed the offence
under section 12, 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and Section 61 & 45 of BNS, 2023, in respect of his alleged
act of writing letter dated 16.7.2024.
30. Learned counsel for revisionist has stated that
although above-mentioned letter dated 16.7.2024 was
written by opposite party no.2 at Lucknow and investigation
& criminal prosecution in previous first information report
dated 7.4.2022 (against opposite party no 3) was pending at
Meerut, however, consequences of aforesaid act of opposite
party no.2 ensues at District-Mathura in terms of section
199 of BNSS, 2023. Therefore, court at Mathura had
jurisdiction to entertain the application of revisionist.
31. Learned Additional Advocate General for State and
learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have taken a stand

18
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
that in fact no offence has been committed by opposite party
no.2. Further, no consequences ensue at Mathura and,
therefore, court of first instance committed no error in
passing the impugned order.
32. A perusal of letter dated 16.7.2024 written by opposite
party no.2 (at page 131 of paper book) would go to show that
aforesaid letter was addressed to Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department. It is further not in dispute between
parties that home department of Government of Uttar
Pradesh is at Lucknow. Therefore, letter was written at
Lucknow by opposite party no.2 and was sent to an office of
Government at Lucknow.

33. Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that
even though abovementioned letter dated 16.7.2024 was
written at Lucknow and addressed to home department at
Lucknow, however, the consequences of aforesaid letter of
opposite party no.2 is interference and delay in investigation
in previous first information report.
34. Learned counsel for revisionist has relied upon section
199 of BNSS,2023 to confer jurisdiction before court at
Mathura. Section 199 of BNSS, 2023 is quoted herein
below :-
“199. Offence triable where act is done
or consequence ensues .—When an act is
an offence by reason of anything which has
been done and of a consequence which has
ensued, the offence may be inquired into or
tried by a Court within whose local

19
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
jurisdiction such thing has been done or
such consequence has ensued.”
35. For applying Section 199 BNSS,2023, the following
elements are required to be established:
a) An act has been committed. There must be a positive
act or omission forming part of the alleged offence.
b) The act constitutes an offence because of something
done.
c) A consequence has ensued.
36. The above section contemplates that where two courts
are having jurisdiction, the trial is permitted to take place in
any one of those two courts. One is the court within whose
local jurisdiction the act/offence has been done and the
other is the court within whose local jurisdiction the
consequence has ensued.
37. In the present case, offending letter dated 16.7.2024
(of opposite party no.2), is being termed as interference in
previous investigation. Learned counsel for revisionist has
not disputed the fact that above-mentioned letter dated
16.7.2024 of opposite party no.2 was written at Lucknow.
However, as per learned counsel for revisionist the
consequences of aforesaid letter dated 16.7.2024 ensues at
Mathura on account of fact that the property in dispute (in
the previous first information report) is situated at Mathura.
The allegation in previous first information report dated
7.4.2022 against opposite party no.3 is to the effect that the
disputed property has been recorded in the name of father
of opposite party no.3 on the basis of forged will. It is also
not in dispute between the parties that investigation in

20
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
respect of previous first information report dated 7.4.2022 is
at Meerut and criminal prosecution is also going on at
Meerut.
38. The applicability of section 199 of BNSS, 2023 would
depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. The
consequences ensued from an act (offence) would depend
upon nature of offence alleged to have been committed by
accused. As per section 199 of BNSS, 2023 when act is an
offence by reason of anything which has been done and the
consequences which has ensued then both the thing
done/act and the consequences is to be part and parcel of
the offence. The use of word “and” between expression
“anything which has been done” & “of consequences which
has ensued” is indicative that the thing done and
consequences ensued be part of offence. Therefore,
consequence must be a part and parcel of offence, meaning
thereby it must complete the definition of alleged offence as
required under the law. For example-if A is wounded within
the local-limits of the jurisdiction of Court X and dies within
the local limits of the jurisdiction of Court Z. The offence of
culpable homicide of A may be enquired into or tried either
by X or Z. The ensuing consequences must ordinarily be a
legally relevant consequence forming part of or connected
with, the alleged offence. A merely remote, incidental, or
purely collateral consequence will not ordinarily confer
territorial jurisdiction. The “consequence” must form part of
offence or be material to accused’s criminal liability in
relation to that offence. If an accused commits an offence in
place A and the victim later experiences anxiety, loss of
employment, or social difficulty at place B, those effects will
not automatically confer jurisdiction to court at place B.

21
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
39. In this respect, the Full bench of this Court in Kashi
Ram Mehta Vs Emperor, AIR 1934 All 499 in respect of
section 179 of Cr. P.C (which is para materia law) has
observed as under:-
“8. But the main question for our consideration is not
whether if Section 179 applies, it has been
overridden by Section 181, Sub-section (1), but
whether Section 179 at all applies to this case. The
expression "of any consequence which has ensued"
in that section obviously means 'by reason of any
consequence etc." The repetition of the word "of"
leaves no doubt that the prepositional phrase "by
reason of" governs "consequence" as well. In this view
the section can have only one meaning, namely, that
the commission of the offence must be "by reason of
anything which has been done and by reason of any
consequence which has ensued." Another noteworthy
fact is that the word "and" has been used instead of
the word "or". Indeed, if the doing of anything were in
itself sufficient to constitute the offence contemplated
in this section, there would have been no occasion to
use the expression of any consequence which has
ensued" at the place at which it occurs; it would have
been quite sufficient to mention it at the end of the
section where it is already mentioned. If therefore the
act done and the consequence which has ensued are
to be taken as together amounting to the offence, the
commission of which is complained against, then it
necessarily follows that the consequence must be a
necessary ingredient of the offence in order that
Section 179 be applicable. If the offence is complete

22
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
in itself by reason of the act having been done and
the consequence is a mere result of it which was not
essential for the completion of the offence, then
Section 179 would not be applicable. The illustrations
to the section also make it clear that the consequence
contemplated in the section is a consequence which
coupled with the act done constitutes the offence. But
if the two can be separated and the act itself is
sufficient to constitute the offence, it would make the
section inapplicable.”
40. For consideration of jurisdictional issue arising in
terms of section 199 of BNSS, 2023, in the present case, it
is imperative to examine the nature of offence attracted from
alleged act of opposite party no.2 and consequences ensued
as the alleged act and consequences must have direct nexus
as discussed herein above. Learned counsel for revisionist
has submitted that act of opposite no.2 of writing letter dated
16.7.2024 is also an offence under section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and consequences is
delay in investigation/interference in investigation. For
determination of consequences of alleged act of opposite
party no.2, it is imperative to examine whether the alleged
act of opposite party no.2 (of writing the letter dated
16.7.2024) would attract section 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act so that determination of consequences
ensued be made. In this respect Section 13 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is quoted herein below:-
“13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
— (1) A public servant is said to commit the
offence of criminal misconduct,—

23
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
(a) if he dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriates or otherwise converts for his
own use any property entrusted to him or any
property under his control as a public servant
or allows any other person so to do; or
(b) if he intentionally enriches himself illicitly
during the period of his office.
Explanation 1.—A person shall be presumed
to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly
if he or any person on his behalf, is in
possession of or has, at any time during the
period of his office, been in possession of
pecuniary resources or property
disproportionate to his known sources of
income which the public servant cannot
satisfactorily account for.
Explanation 2.—The expression ‘‘known
sources of income’’ means income received
from any lawful sources.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal
misconduct shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not
less than four years but which may extend to
ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”
41. In the present case, revisionist preferred an
application under section 175 (3) of BNSS, 2023 against
opposite party no.2 with the allegation that opposite party
no.2 has written letter dated 16.7.2024 that has resulted in
interference and delay in investigation in previous first
information report. The aforesaid letter of opposite party
no.2 is in reference to previous investigation arising out of

24
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
first information report dated 7.4.2022 wherein allegation
arisen against opposite party no.3 regarding property in
dispute.
42. The application of revisionist under section 175 (3) of
BNSS, 2023 before the court concerned does not allege that
opposite party no.2 has dishonestly or fraudulently
misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any
property entrusted to him or any property under his control
as a public servant or allows any other person so to do.
Further, said application of revisionist before court of first
instance also does not allege that opposite party no.2
intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his
office. The allegation is of delay and interference in pending
investigation arising out of first information report dated
7.4.2022 by act of opposite party no.2 of writing letter dated
16.7.2024.
43. The allegation of misappropriation or misuse of office
in respect of property in dispute is against opposite party
no.3 (arising out of First information report dated 7.4.2022
and not in the present case). It is not shown by learned
counsel for revisionist that in previous first information
report dated 7.4.2022, opposite party no 2 is an accused. It
is when investigation of previous first information report
dated 7.4.2022 was going on (ie after the alleged commission
of offence by opposite party no.3 as alleged in the previous
first information report dated 7.4.2022) it is alleged that
opposite party no.2 is said to have written abovementioned
letter dated 16.7.2024 to the Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department at Lucknow, (forwarding the application
of wife of opposite party no.3 for consideration in accordance

25
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
with law). The request for re-examination of disputed will (in
respect of property in dispute in previous first information
report) by reputed institution . The aforesaid allegation by no
stretch of imagination can be said to constitute an offence
under section 13(2) of prevention of corruption act, 1988.
44. The consequence which ensues as per learned counsel
for revisionist is the delay and interference in the
investigation of previous first information report dated
7.4.2022. Such allegation (of delay and interference in
investigation) cannot be construed as a consequence of
alleged act of opposite party no.2 being part of offence under
section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in terms of
section 199 of BNSS, 2023. As observed hereinabove,
consequences must be part & parcel of alleged offence and
must complete the definition of alleged offence. Therefore,
alleged consequences (of delay and interference in
investigation) has no direct nexus or ensuing consequences
of offence under section 13 of Prevention of Corruption act,
1988. In view of above, once there is no offence as detailed
hereinabove and no consequences ensued then question of
jurisdiction arising from offence under section 13 (2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not arise at
Mathura. Similarly, section 12 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 would not arise against opposite party no.2 in the
facts and circumstances of the case as there is no allegation
of abetment of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 against opposite party no.2.
45. Even otherwise, consequence of delay and interference
in investigation as a result of abovementioned letter dated
16.7.2024 is not an act/offence connected in any manner

26
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
with any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
More particularly, when there is no allegation of corruption
against opposite party no.2 in application filed under section
175(3) of BNSS, 2023. It is settled law that criminal
machinery cannot be set on motion on basis of suspicion but
is required to be based on foundational facts and material
which constitute an offence. In view of aforesaid, no offence
and/or consequences ensued under the Prevention of
Corruption act, 1988 which can be said to have been ensued
within the jurisdiction of court concerned at Mathura.
46. Learned counsel for revisionist has further referred to
section 61 of BNS, 2023 to submit that alleged act of opposite
party no.2 is an offence under section 61 of BNS, 2023. It is
further stated that consequences ensue are delay and
interference in investigation in respect of previous first
information report. The question of jurisdiction under
section 199 of BNSS, 2023 is based on determination of
offence made out and the consequences ensued. The
allegation against opposite party no 2 is that letter dated
16.7.2024 by opposite party no 2 amounts to interference
and delay in investigation against opposite party no 3 arising
out of first information report dated 7.4.2022. The aforesaid
act of opposite party no 2 is being termed as an offence under
section 61 of BNS, 2023.

47. The question is whether writing of letter dated
16.7.2024 by opposite party no.2 would amount to an
offence under section 61 of BNS, 2023 so that its
consequences (of delay and interference in investigation)
ensued would confer jurisdiction to court at Mathura. As per
the revisionist, the act of writing letter dated 16.7.2024 by

27
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
opposite party no.2 is an illegal act of interference in an
investigation. A perusal of above mentioned letter dated
16.7.2024 of opposite party No.2 would go to show that
opposite party no.2 by aforesaid letter addressed to
Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow has
referred to letter of Mrs. Shalbha Singhal (addressed to Chief
Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow (annexed at page 132 of paper book) whereby she
has sought verification of signature on disputed document
from any credible agency or institution and the opposite
party no.2 has only forwarded & requested for taking action
in accordance with law by concerned department. A perusal
of said letter dated 16.7.2024 would show that aforesaid
letter of opposite party no.2 is not issued to investigating
agencies (which is at Meerut) but is send to Home
Department of Government of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow
where representation/application dated 18.2.2024 of wife of
opposite party no.3 was already pending.

48. It is further to be noted that Under-Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh in his letter dated 24.10.2024
has referred to letter dated 16.7.2024 of opposite party no.2
and annexed representation dated 18.2.2024 & 23.7.2024
(representation dated 23.7.2024 of opposite party no.3 does
not form part of letter dated 16.7.2024 of opposite party no.2
as the same is written after letter dated 16.7.2024). In
pursuance of abovementioned representation of wife of
opposite party no.3 & that of opposite party no.3, the Under
Secretary has directed by letter dated 24.10.2024 addressed
to Director, Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Department, Lucknow
for further investigation in terms of section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
for verification of disputed document (arising out of previous

28
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
first information report dated 7.4.2022 against opposite
party no.3) by Central Forensic Science Laboratory.
49. Learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 has stated
that in previous first information report dated 7.4.2022,
investigating agency after completion of investigation has
submitted chargesheet on 4.10.2024 before the court
concerned at Meerut and cognizance & summoning order
(against opposite party no.3) has been passed by court
concerned on 7.10.2024 at Meerut. The aforesaid fact is not
disputed by learned counsel for revisionist before this court.
50. The letter dated 24.10.2024 by State Government
(Home Department) for further investigation has been issued
after the submission of chargesheet by investigating agency
before the court concerned at Meerut (in previous first
information report) and after cognizance being taken by
court concerned at Meerut on 7.10.2024. Therefore, in such
circumstances it cannot be said that opposite party no.2 has
interfered or delayed investigation of previous first
information report dated 7.4.2022.
51. Even otherwise, letter dated 24.10.2024 of State
Government only refers to section 173(8) Cr.P.C for further
investigation by sending the disputed document to Central
Forensic Science Laboratory for verification of signature on
disputed document. It is not in dispute that during
investigation the disputed document was examined by
Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra and as per learned
counsel for revisionist, aforesaid report of Forensic Science
Laboratory, Agra was against opposite party no.3. Prior to
issuance of letter dated 24.10.2024 by State Government,

29
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
the chargesheet has been submitted in the previous
investigation on 4.10.2024 and the court concerned has
taken cognizance on 7.10.2024 itself. Further, Smt. Salbha
Singhal (wife of opposite party no.3) has submitted her letter
dated 18.2.2024 before Chief Secretary (Home), Government
of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and not to opposite party no.2.
The opposite party no.2 has only forwarded the letter of Smt.
Salbha Singhal to concerned department for action in
accordance with law. It is further the admitted position that
after investigation in previous first information report dated
7.4.2022, the chargesheet has been submitted by
investigating agency on 4.10.2024 and court concerned has
taken cognizance on 7.10.2024 at Meerut.

52. It is further to be noted that further investigation in a
criminal case is a statutory procedure prescribed by law, the
invocation of aforesaid statutory procedure by State
Government or its agency by itself cannot amount to
interference in investigation. Further, it is not shown by
learned counsel for revisionist that order dated 24.10.2024
has been held to be illegal or against law by any court of law.
It is a settled law that there is presumption of official acts to
have been regularly performed and initial burden ordinarily
lies on person challenging the order.
53. Section 199 of BNSS, 2023 applies where an act
becomes an offence by reason of both something that has
been done and a consequence that has ensued. In such a
case, offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within
whose local jurisdiction either the relevant act was done or
the consequence ensued. In the present case, the alleged
offence is criminal conspiracy under Section 61 of the

30
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 61 requires an
agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause to
be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal
means. The material relied upon against opposite party no.2
is the letter dated 16.07.2024 of opposite party no 2,
whereby the request/representation made by wife of opposite
party no.3 was merely forwarded to concerned department
for appropriate action in accordance with law. The alleged
decision-making authority in relation to further
investigation was a different department of Government.
Consequently, forwarding of representation cannot, by itself,
be treated as interference with investigation being conducted
at Meerut.
54. It is further to be noted that opposite party no.2 is an
elected representative and, therefore, citizens may approach
an elected representative for redressal of their grievances. An
elected representative may, in turn, forward such grievance
to competent department for consideration and action in
accordance with law. Mere forwarding of a citizen’s
grievance, (in the absence of any positive or coercive
direction in favour of the person making the representation),
does not disclose an agreement to commit an illegal act or to

procure an illegal result. In the present case, letter dated
16.07.2024 contains no positive direction, command, or
instruction to delay, obstruct, or otherwise interfere with
investigation. It only recommends or requests that action be
taken in accordance with law. Thus, said letter dated
16.7.2024 and act of opposite party no.2 does not disclose
the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy under
Section 61 BNS, 2023.

31
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
55. In view of above, letter dated 16.07.2024, being a mere
forwarding of a representation for action in accordance with
law, does not disclose any agreement to commit an illegal act
or to employ illegal means. Therefore, does not constitute an
offence under Section 61 BNS, 2023 and, as a result, no
consequences can be said to have ensued from the alleged
act in respect to Section 61 of BNS, 2023. Further,
investigation was conducted at Meerut & not at Mathura,
and no consequence constituting alleged offence ensued at
Mathura. Section 199 of BNSS, 2023 is consequently, not
attracted, since neither alleged criminal act nor any legally
relevant consequence of such act occurred within territorial
jurisdiction of court at Mathura. The fact that representation
was acted upon only after submission of charge-sheet and
taking of cognizance further negatives any allegation of delay
or interference with investigation.
56. Learned counsel for revisionist has further relied upon
Sections 45 and 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
alleging that act of opposite party no.2 constitutes abetment.
Section 45 of BNS, 2023 deals with abetment, while Section
49 prescribes punishment where act abetted is committed in
consequence of abetment. The question, therefore, is
whether the letter dated 16.07.2024 amounts to abetment of
any offence and, if so, whether any offence or legally relevant
consequence ensued within territorial jurisdiction of
Mathura.
57. The allegation against opposite party no.2 is confined
to forwarding to the Home Department the representation
submitted by wife of opposite party no.3, requesting further
investigation in earlier First Information Report. The

32
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
representation sought verification of disputed signature
through a reputed laboratory. Such a request is referable to
statutory power of further investigation under Section 173(8)
BNSS, 2023 and statutory provision permits further
investigation in accordance with law. The exercise of a
statutory power of further investigation cannot, by itself,
constitute an offence under BNS, 2023 nor can forwarding
of a request for such lawful action amount to instigation,
intentional aid, or conspiracy, particularly when letter dated
16.07.2024 of opposite party no.2 merely requested the
competent department to take action in accordance with law
and contained no positive or unlawful direction. Mere fact
that representation or subsequent correspondence is
indirectly & remotely related to property at Mathura does not
establish that any offence under Sections 45 or 49 BNS, or
any legally relevant consequence thereof, ensued at
Mathura. Further, consequences of alleged act of opposite
party no.2 (of forwarding representation of wife of opposite
party no 3) and consequent exercise of statutory power of
further investigation by department in terms of letter dated
24.10.2024 after cognizance has been taken by court
concerned at Meerut on 7.10.2024 does not amount that any
consequences of alleged act has taken place at Mathura.
58. Learned counsel for revisionist has further relied upon
section 60 of BNS, 2023 as an offence committed by opposite
party no.2. Section 60 of BNS, 2023 refers to person
whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that
he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence
punishable with imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any
act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit
such offence, or makes any representation which he knows

33
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
to be false respecting such design is made punishable. In the
present case, there is no allegation about facilitation of
commission of any offence punishable with imprisonment,
by writing the letter dated 16.7.2024. It is also not the case
that there is any concealment by opposite party no.2 or the
existence of any design to commit an offence or make any
false representation with regard to such design for
commission of offence. Once the thing done and its
consequences are not offence, then section 199 BNSS, 2023
would not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the
case and because of same no consequences of alleged act of
opposite party no.2 ensued at Mathura.
59. It is further to be noted that even assuming that the
alleged act of opposite party no.2 of writing letter dated
16.7.2024 is an offence and as per counsel for revisionist,
the consequences ensued are interference in investigation
and delay in investigation arising out of previous first
information report dated 7.4.2022 lodged at Meerut against
opposite party no.3. It is further not in dispute that
investigation in previous first information report was being
held at Meerut. The consequences ensued as per the
revisionist is the delay & interference in investigation which
was pending at Meerut. The submission of learned counsel
for revisionist that previous first information report lodged at
Meerut is in respect of property situated at Mathura and, on
the aforesaid basis, it has been stated that consequences in
respect of act of opposite party no.2 also ensued at Mathura
is not only remote & has no direct nexus with alleged act of
opposite party no.2 so as to constitute consequences ensued
in terms of section 199 of BNSS, 2023. It is also not in
dispute that in previous investigation, the signature of

34
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
disputed document was examined by the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Agra and not at Mathura.
60. The alleged consequences ensuing by way of delayed
investigation as well as interference in investigation even
otherwise is relatable to Meerut as investigation was pending
at Meerut. It is further to be noted that letter dated
16.7.2024 of opposite party no.2 does not direct further
investigation by sending the disputed signature to Central
Forensic Science Laboratory. It is the letter dated 24.10.2024
which directs that further investigation be held in
accordance with law. The aforesaid letter dated 24.10.2024
is not written by opposite party no.2. Therefore, the act of
opposite party no.2 of writing the letter dated 16.7.2024 at
the best would have consequences of issuance of letter dated
24.10.2024 being written by concerned department of the
State Government at Lucknow.
61. It is further to be noted that further investigation in
previous first information report is the result of letter dated
24.10.2024 which was not been written by opposite party
no.2 and, therefore, alleged delay/interference in
investigation cannot be construed to have a direct nexus
with the act of opposite party no.2, as the letter dated
24.10.2024 has been issued on the basis of representation
submitted by wife of opposite party no.3. The situation of
property in dispute at Mathura will be of no good as no
consequences of act of opposite party no.2 can be said to
have been ensued at Mathura. Further, the property in
dispute at Mathura is subject matter of previous first
information report dated 7.4.2022 at Meerut. However, the
alleged act of opposite party no.2 has no direct nexus with

35
CRLR No. - 3267 of 2026
the property at Mathura. Further, in previous first
information report dated 7.4.2022, charge sheet was already
submitted and court concerned at Meerut has taken
cognizance on 7.10.2024 (i,e prior to issuance of letter dated
24.10.2024 directing further investigation).
62. In view of aforesaid, trial court committed no error in
rejecting the application of petitioner under section 175 (3)
of BNSS, 2023 by impugned order dated 6.6.2025 and as
such calls for no interference of this court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present criminal
revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
September 3, 2026
Bhaskar
Digitally signed by :-
BHASKAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad