Allahabad High Court
Muralidhar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 17 August, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 93 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23719 of 2022 Applicant :- Muralidhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to set-aside the judgment and order dated 5.4.2022 passed by C.J.M. Varanasi in Misc. Case No. 748 of 2022 (Muralidhar Vs. Shahin Rahman and another) under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., P.S. Shivpur, District Varanasi and order dated 23.6.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Crl. Revision.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that plot no. 507 area 0.58 decimal, plot no. 509 area 0.62 decimal, plot no. 511 area 57 decimal were recorded in the name of Mahadev who died on 7.2.1956. The name of applicant was mutated over plot no. 554, 555, 518. It was also in the name of Mahadev but plot no. 507, 509, 511 were not mutated in the name of applicant. The name of heirs of Bhagwan Das continued to the extent of half share and over plot no. 511 only. Mahadev is different person and plot no. 511 was not recorded in the name of Mahadev son of Harakhu. The name of Mewa and Daya sons of Mahadev Yadav were recorded on plot no. 511 illegally without any order and without any authority whereas plot no. 511 belongs to applicant's father Mahadev Kurmi. Mewa and Daya had executed sale deed dated 2.2.1993 in favour of Rasheed Ahmad. The sons of Rasheed Ahmad transferred the plot no. 511 in favour of Ismail and Shaheen Rahman. When applicant came to know about the aforesaid fact he moved an application under section 33/39 of L.R. Act. This application was rejected on the ground that he can file regular suit. In pursuance of it he filed application under section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code for declaration. Applicant also filed an interim application with a prayer that parties be directed not to raise construction over plot no. 511. This interim application was allowed. The O.P. No. 2 got sale deed from Rasheed Ahmad and Rasheed Ahmad got sale deed from Mewa and Daya Yadav. Then applicant moved application before the authority concerned and police that there is interim order passed by S.D.O. in favour of the applicant. The O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 have deliberately and willfully flouted the orders passed by S.D.O. It is further contended that applicant moved an application before C.J.M. Varanasi U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for direction to police to register a case against O.P. No. 2 and 3 as they are raising construction despite knowledge of interim order passed by S.D.O. in proceeding under section 14 of U.P. Land Revenue Code. The C.J.M. Varanasi illegally rejected the application on 5.4.2022. The applicant filed criminal revision against the aforesaid order which has also been dismissed by Session Judge, Varanasi vide order dated 23.6.2022. Learned counsel contended that the impugned orders passed by C.J.M. Varanasi and District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi are wholly illegal. A prima facie case is made out against O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 who have deliberately and willfully flouted the interim orders passed by the competent court but O.P. No. 3 did not stop the construction and helped the O.P. No. 2 to raise construction. The said action of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 amounts to commission of criminal offence for which FIR should have been lodged against them.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.
From the material it is clear that the dispute between the parties is regarding landed property and proceeding before the revenue code are going on. The grounds on the basis of which prayer has been made for registration of a criminal offence are not sufficient. No criminal offence is made out from the allegations made in the application. If any interim order passed in any revenue proceeding is being flouted by any of the opposite party the proper remedy is not for registration of a criminal offence. The learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The session court has also appreciated the orders of the learned Magistrate and found no illegality has rejected the criminal revision.
The application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2022 Masarrat