Allahabad High Court
Ranjeet Teotia vs State Of U.P.And Another on 29 June, 2022
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 10 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16619 of 2022 Applicant :- Ranjeet Teotia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 12.11.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh issuing process of 83, 84, 85 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 44 of 2021, under Section 302, 120-B I.P.C. against one Bijendra Singh s/9 Tej Singh.
Facts in nutshell, are that father of the applicant, Bijendra Singh is wanted in Case Crime No. 44 of 2021. According to the applicant, his father has been absconding for long and a report has been lodged by him on 29.01.2021. When the whereabouts of applicant's father could not be traced, the applicant approached this Court through Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7243 of 2021. According to applicant counsel, the writ petition is still pending and no recovery has been made by police authority of his father, Bijendra Singh. According to him, process under Section 83, 84 and 85 Cr.P.C. has been instituted against the property of Bijendra Singh by attaching the property which is a house and belongings therein have been taken away by police.
Learned A.G.A. while opposing the application submitted that the present application is not maintainable at the behest of son as the order impugned has been passed against one Bijendra Singh who is absconding. He further submitted that there is no averment in the affidavit to the application that the property belongs to the applicant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, I find that the present application at the behest of the son challenging the process under Section 83, 84 and 85 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, nor there is any pleading to the effect that house in question which has been attached by issuance of process under law belongs to the applicant and not his father, Bijendra Singh.
Once, Bijendra Singh is absconding, court below had no option but to proceed in accordance with law and rightly issued process under Sections 83, 84 and 85 of Cr.P.C.
In view of above, the application is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.6.2022 V.S.Singh