Allahabad High Court
Drone Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64477 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33236 of 2024 Applicant :- Drone Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the request to quash the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 82 of 2024 (Drone Kumar vs. Seema Saxena and another) arising out of order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 4, Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No. 9 of 2024, under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 447, 403, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Vaishali, District Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is bonafied purchaser who had bought a property through registered sale deed dated 27.03.2023 in which Opposite Party No. 2 was tenant and after purchase of the property, when applicant asked her to vacate the property she refused the same. Further submission is that applicant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging an FIR. with the allegation that Opposite Party No. 2 has prepared some forged document and as such trying to sell out the property, the Court concerned after recording the statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. instead of lodging the FIR has treated the application as complaint vide order dated 16.01.2024. Aggrieved with the said order, the applicant had filed revision before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court while entertaining the revision vide order dated 26.07.2014 was pleased to reject the criminal revision filed by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the order of Revisional Court has been assailed by means of instant application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Opposite Party No. 2 has made some forged documents and on the basis of such forged document she might sell out the property for which he had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging the FIR, but the learned Magistrate in a very mechanical and cursory manner after recording a statement instead of lodging the FIR treated it as a complaint case which is pure abuse of process of law and Revisional Court without considering the veracity of the matter has rejected the revision filed by the applicant which is pure abuse of the process of the law and the same is liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra learned AGA submits that while purchasing the property applicant had full knowledge that the Opposite Party No. 2 was tenant and after purchasing the property when he asked the Opposite Party No. 2 to vacate the property the same was denied. He very fairly agreed that it is a case of civil dispute, the best remedy to resolve the issue is to file a suit, but instead of filling a suit, applicant had initiated the present criminal proceeding.
6. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, apparently applicant had bought the property in which Opposite Party No.2 was tenant, while buying the property applicant was very well aware with the fact that Opposite Party No. 2 is tenant in the said property and applicant tried to vacate the property from Opposite Party No. 2. Instead of going through the proper channel which is best remedy available in law is to file a suit for eviction, applicant straightaway initiated criminal proceeding, which is pure abuse of process of law. On the other hand impugned order passed by the Revisional Court does not bear any illegality or infirmity. Further there is nothing on record which call interference by this Court and the application is liable to be dismissed.
7. The instant application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Bhanu