It would be quite pertinent to note that in the fitness of things, the Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Diwakar Nath Tripathi v. State of UP and Another in Criminal Revision No.2213 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No. – 2025:AHC:105513 that was initially reserved on 23.05.2025 and then was finally pronounced on 07.07.2025 has rejected the Criminal Revision that had challenged the educational degree of the Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh – Mr Keshav Prasad Maurya.

We need to note here that the revisionist namely Diwakar Nath Tripathi had sought setting aside of the judgment that had been passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) by which his application under Section 156 of the CrPC was rejected seeking direction for the registration of FIR. It must be also noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh who authored this noteworthy judgment was most unequivocal and candid in holding that the proceedings appear to be prima facie initiated maliciously by the revisionist with oblique motives with an intention to gain some advantage or to settle his score. We thus see that the Allahabad High Court prima facie found it absolutely fit to reject the criminal revision that had been filed and so also refused to interfere with the impugned order. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This Criminal Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 04.09.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Misc. Case No. 102/XII/ 2021 (C.N.R. No. 2750/2021), whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C dated 20.07.2021 filed by the revisionist seeking direction for registration of First Information Report against respondent no. 2 and to investigate the same.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating on the factual matrix of the case specifically stating that:
The facts that formed the bedrock of the present criminal revision are that the revisionist-Diwakar Nath Tripathi, has moved an application dated 20.07.2021 under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Allahabad with the allegations inter alia that:-

3.1 Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya by concealing facts obtained political and lucrative position on the basis of misrepresentation and forged documents. He, while contesting the Assembly Election of 2007 from Allahabad West Constituency, has disclosed that he has passed Prathma in the year 1986, Madhyama in the year 1988 and Uttama in the year 1998 from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. In the year 2012, in the column of highest educational qualification, while Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya was contesting the Assembly Election from Sirathu Vidhan Sabha Constituency (Kaushambi) had disclosed that he passed B.A. in the year 1997 from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Similarly, false affidavit has been filed in the year 2014 Lok Sabha Election, Phoolpur Constituency and Vidhan Parishad Election.

3.2 The application further recounts that Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya has been allotted a petrol pump from Indian Oil Corporation Limited on the basis of forged educational documents. The said petrol pump is being operated in district Kaushambi in the name of Kamdhenu Filling Station.

3.3 It is also mentioned in the application that so far as the educational qualification is concerned, certificates of Prathma, Madhyma, Uttama Sahitya Ratna issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan are not considered as equivalent to High School, Intermediate and Bachelor (B.A.) degree respectively by Uttar Pradesh Government, UGC and NECT. Under the Right to Information Act, the Principal Secretary, Secondary Education has provided information on 01.08.2017 that Prathama, Madhyama (Visharad) examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad was neither recognized in the past nor is recognized at present as equivalent to the High School and Intermediate examination of the Board of Secondary Education, U.P.

3.4 Shri Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya using the said certificate of Prathma of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad has obtained the Petrol Pump.

3.5 Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya has submitted affidavits in different elections to the Election Commission, in which the educational qualification of the same class has been shown in different years, whereas the qualifying year/session of the same educational qualification is the same and not different. In this manner, a malicious attempt was made to obtain a public post by concealing facts in a wrong manner through fraudulent conduct and forged documents and he was successful too.

3.6 The documents made available to the revisionist under the Right to Information Act in respect of educational qualification of Keshav Prasad Maurya from the Indian Oil as well as from the Election Commission, in which the writing and signature of Keshav Prasad Maurya were found different. When the revisionist went to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan along with the aforesaid documents and wanted to get second copy of Roll No. 3238 Samvat 2053 (1996) of Uttar Madhyma, second part (Sahitya Ratna), he was told by the official concerned that in Roll No. 3238 Samvat 2053 (1996), the name of Manju Singh, daughter of Lal Singh Chauhan is recorded, which proved that the affidavit and the educational documents are forged and fabricated.

3.7 In the booklet issued by the Indian Oil, the qualification for allotment of petrol pump has been clearly mentioned as High School, but Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya by using his political influence on the basis of Prathma degree has got the petrol pump whereas he does not fulfil the conditions and qualifications for the allotment of the petrol pump.

3.8 It is further mentioned in the application that Shri Keshav Prasad Maurya on the basis of forged and fabricated documents are using and enjoying the public property which is very dangerous to the society and the country. The revisionist is very much hurt from the aforesaid act of shri Keshav Prasad Maurya and, therefore, prayed that strict penal action is required be taken against him.

3.9 For registration of first information report, the applicant sent an application on 19.07.2021 by registered post to the In-charge Inspector, Cantt., Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj, Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow, Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. Lucknow, Governor of U.P. Principal Secretary (Home) Ministry of Home, Government of India, New Delhi, but no action has been taken.

3.10 Being aggrieved by the inaction of the district administration, the revisionist has filed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of F.I.R. against respondent no. 2 and investigation of the case.

It is worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 18 that:
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that:-

18.1 Revisionist is not personally affected from the educational certificate of ‘Prathma’, ‘Madhyama’ and ‘Uttama’ of respondent no. 2 issued in the year 1986, 1988 and 1998 from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad.

18.2 Regarding the issue of locus-standi, the stand of the revisionist is that although he is not affected by the affidavit of respondent no. 2 submitted before the Election Commission in the year 2007, 2009 and 2014 as well as furnishing information before the Indian Oil Corporation, but he is personally hurt by the act and conduct of respondent no. 2, therefore in the larger interest of society he is running from pillar to post to get the F.I.R. lodged against respondent no.2.

18.3 Revisionist claims himself to be a social worker and RTI activist, whereas he has not filed any document on record with regard to his social work. So far as his claim that he is RTI activist is concerned, there is no material on record to indicate that revisionist is RTI activist and he had obtain information under under R.T.I. Act about people other than respondent no. 2 and made effort to get the F.I.R. lodged against any other person before filing application dated 20.07.2021 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against respondent no.2.

18.4 It is not the case of the revisionist that said certificates of ‘Prathma’, ‘Madhyama’ and ‘Uttama’ have not been issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad to respondent no. 2.

18.5 Neither the Election Commission nor the Indian Oil Corporation provided any document relating to respondent no. 2 to the complainant/revisionist.

18.6 The revisionist in application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 20.07.2021 has not disclosed the date of his knowledge and source of information about the educational certificates of the respondent no.2.

18.7 There is no complainant of Smt. Manju Singh against respondent no. 2 and she has not been impleaded by the revisionist in array of the parties.

18.8 Revisionist has not filed any complaint/representation before the Election Commission and Indian Oil Corporation with regard to filing of alleged forged and false educational certificates of Prathma, Madhyama and Uttama by respondent no. 2. Even no correspondence has been made in this regard from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad.

Briefly stated, the Bench then points out in para 20 that:
The main grievance of the revisionist is that respondent no. 2 obtained political position on the basis of misrepresentation and furnishing forged educational certificate of Prathma, Madhyma, Uttama Sahitya Ratna of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan with affidavit before the Election Commission while contesting Assembly Election in the year 2007, 2012 and Lok Sabha Election 2014. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that tenure of aforesaid Assembly Election held in the year 2007, 2012 and Lok Sabha Election held in the year 2014 had already expired prior to moving application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C dated 20.07.2021 by the revisionist. Apart from this it is specific case of respondent no. 2 that whatever certificate was issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan to him, he has submitted to the Election Commission and Indian Oil Corporation, hence there is no question of forgery of any kind.

From the contents of paragraph no. 5 of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as well as paragraph no. 6 of the affidavit of the revisionist filed in support of the application, it clear that the revisionist has admitted the fact that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has issued said certificates of ‘Prathma’, ‘Madhyama’ and ‘Uttama’ to respondent no. 2, hence the said documents cannot be said to be forged or false document prepared by respondent no. 2. Even assuming that respondent no. 2 had given false declaration or affidavit at the relevant point of time before the Election Commission, then also said allegation will not traverse Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Most significantly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 26 what constitutes the actual cornerstone and nucleus of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
Any certificate being forged and any certificate not being recognised as equivalent to High School are two different things and will have different effect. In the present case the main thrust of argument on behalf of revisionist is that educational certificates (Prathma, Madhyma and Uttama Sahitya Ratna) of respondent no. 2 issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad are not considered as equivalent to High School, Intermediate and Bachelor, therefore submission of said documents by respondent no. 2 before the Election Commission and Indian Oil Corporation amounts to an offence of forgery is not liable to be accepted and has no legal force. If there is no forgery in any document or educational certificate and the same has been issued by the office of authority concerned under seal and signature, then said document or educational certificate cannot be said to be a forged document. If there is no forgery, the document cannot be said to be a false document irrespective of the issue whether it is recognised under the law or not and this situation cannot lead to criminal action under the I.P.C. or BNS, 2023. The issue is purely civil in nature and cannot be permitted to give colour of criminal one.

Quite significantly, the Bench observes in para 27 that:
Another grievance of the revisionist is that respondent no. 2 has also obtained a retail outlet from Indian Oil Corporation on the basis of degree of Prathma 1986 of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, which is not considered as equivalent to High School by Uttar Pradesh Government, it is relevant to mention that whether respondent no. 2 has validly obtained the retail out-let or not is not a matter of criminal action at this stage. For the said purpose Indian Oil Corporation is the competent authority to look into the matter, in case any grievance is raised before it. The revisionist has not preferred any representation against the allotment of retail outlet before the Indian Oil Corporation. Under the facts of the case, he cannot be allowed to drag respondent No. 2 in a criminal prosecution for an action which is essentially civil in nature.

It would be instructive to note that the Bench then hastens to add in para 28 noting that:
In paragraph No. 10 of the application dated 20.07.2021, under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as well as in paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit filed in support of this revision, it is mentioned that revisionist had sent the application to the concerned police authorities for registration of FIR through registered post on 19.07.2021, but the revisionist instead of receipts dated 19.07.2021 of registered post, has filed the receipts dated 14.07.2021 of registered post before the learned Magistrate which do not corroborate from the averment made in the application dated 20.07.2021 under Section 156 (3) CrP.C., hence the same creates doubt. As such said averment does not inspire confidence.

Notably, the Bench notes in para 33 that:
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case in totality, it appears that revisionist is pretentiously aggrieved but potentially dangerous. There is no force in the contention urged on behalf of the revisionist that respondent no. 2 has forged his educational certificate and filed before the Election Commission and Indian Oil Corporation. In view of the above discussion the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the revisionist even if they are taken at their face value do not constitute the cognizable offence.

More to the point, the Bench notes in para 34 that:
The complainant-revisionist is not a person deceived by respondent no. 2, therefore, in view of Section 39 Cr.P.C, he had no locus to move an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction to register FIR regarding alleged offence of cheating and forgery which are not covered under Section 39 of Cr.P.C.

Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 35 holding that:
The wheels of criminal justice system cannot be permitted to be clogged by frivolous complaints where complainant himself is not aggrieved or victim in any manner.

Quite forthrightly, the Bench enunciates in para 36 expounding that:
The proceedings appear to be prima facie initiated maliciously by the revisionist with oblique motives with an intention to gain some advantage or to settle his score.

As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 37 that:
Under the facts of the case, the prayer made by the revisionist for direction to register an FIR against respondent no. 2 and investigate defy any logic or prudence. Hence, in the backdrop of factual matrix of the case as discussed above, allowing the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C of the revisionist would amount to travesty of justice.

Adding more to it, the Bench directs in para 38 holding that:
In view of the above, the allegations of the complainant (revisionist-Diwakar Nath Tripathi), who is admittedly neither victim nor aggrieved with the educational certificates of respondent no. 2 (Keshav Prasad Maurya, who is sitting Deputy Chief Minister of State of U.P.) do not disclose cognizable offence, hence this criminal revision is liable to be rejected.

Resultantly, the Bench postulates in para 39 holding that:
As a fall out and consequence of above discussion and reasons, I find that the impugned order dated 04.09.2021 is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons, the same does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence no interference is required by this Court.

In addition, the Bench directs in para 40 holding that:
This Criminal Revision lacks merit and stands rejected.

Finally, the Bench then directs in para 41 holding that:
Office is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Court below in a sealed cover.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut-250001, Uttar Pradesh