Allahabad High Court
Nanu @ Mamchand vs State Of Up And 13 Others on 28 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:96066 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9756 of 2024 Nanu @ Mamchand .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of Up And 13 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Satya Prakash Maurya Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Case is taken up on the mention made by learned counsel for the respondent in the morning. In this regard, notice to the learned counsel for the private respondent for ensuring his presence has been duly served through WhatsApp, which is taken on record. However, learned counsel for the private respondent has not appeared. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State are present.
3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following main prayers :-
"i) set aside the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 50 of 2023 (Nanu @ Mamchand Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) as well as order dated 18.01.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Misc. Application No.407 of 2021 (Nanu @ Mamchand Vs. Ajay and others) Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Gagalhedi, District-Saharanpur.
ii) direct the Court concerned to pass a fresh order directing the Station House Officer, Police Station-Gagalhedi, District Saharanpur to lodge the First Information Report against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 14 and investigate the matter in accordance with law."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner before the learned CJM, Saharanpur alleging therein that 14 accused persons, including two Lekhpals, one Kanoongo and one Naib Tehsildar, encroached upon his Gata Nos.251, 757M by constructing a passage upon it. He submitted that entire facts and allegations were properly disclosed in his application and those allegations, prima facie, constitute an offence. However, his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned CJM by order dated 18.1.2023. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2023, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.50 of 2023 (Nanu @ Mamchand vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). However, said criminal revision was also dismissed on 2.7.2024 without considering the gravity of allegations disclosed in his application. It was submitted that both courts have committed gross illegality in disbelieving the allegations mentioned in his application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order.
6. It is apparent that an inquiry report was summoned by the learned CJM in pursuance of the allegations mentioned in the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It was mentioned in the inquiry report that the petitioner had encroached upon Gata No.287 and 257 by raising fence (barbed wires). It was also stated that a chak road was proposed to be constructed upon Gata Nos.287 and 257 and the revenue team had reached on the spot in order to remove the obstruction raised by the petitioner. It was in pursuance of the said report that the application of the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned CJM by order dated 18.1.2023.
7. It is very much apparent from the inquiry report that revenue officials had reached on the spot to remove illegal encroachment upon the government land. Therefore, it is not possible to conceive that unconcerned revenue officials would unnecessarily encroached the bhumidhari land of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not any perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court as well as by the revisional court.
8. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. The order dated 18.1.2023 passed by the learned CJM, Saharanpur and the order dated 2.7.2024 passed by the revisional court are hereby upheld.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) April 28, 2026 SK