Disposed

Pratap Chanadra Verma and another v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2018A482/18742/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed against remittal order setting aside an earlier order rejecting an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Held, the impugned order was indeed ex parte, and no conclusion on merits was made. Matter remanded for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The application was disposed of holding the observation that the order was ex parte was erroneous, though the remitting of the matter for reconsideration is left to the Magistrate.

Pratap Chanadra Verma and another Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18742 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Pratap Chanadra Verma And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sajeev Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ratnesh Nandan, learned AGA for the State as also perused the record.

¶6

Present application has been filed against the order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Kanpur Nagar, by which the revision filed by the opposite party no.2 being Criminal Revision No. 519 of 2015 has been allowed. The learned court below has remitted the matter to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar after setting aside the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the said learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the opposite party no.2.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the case set up by the opposite party no.2 in her application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. had been considered by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in his order dated 30.09.2015 and therefore, the learned revisional court has erred in setting aside that order and remitting the matter to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar to reconsider the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

¶8

It has also been submitted that the order was passed after hearing the opposite party no.2 and therefore, the observation made by the learned court below that the order dated 30.09.2015 was exparte, is clearly erroneous.

¶9

It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has committed fraud on the applicant in respect of an agreement to sell of an immovable property. Only upon the applicants having lodged an FIR against the said opposite party no.2 and the said opposite party no.2 having been arrested by the police in that case on 24.06.2015, the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by way of a counter blast.

¶10

It is also stated that the opposite party no.2 had committed similar fraud against other person also in respect of the same property.

¶11

In view of such facts, it has been submitted that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had not committed any error in rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

¶12

Sri Ratnesh Nandan, learned AGA on the other hand submits that at present stage, the learned court below has only set aside the order rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and no conclusion on merits of the application has been recorded. It is thus submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the applicants and the matter has only been required to be reconsidered.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that insofar as the learned court below has observed that the order dated 30.09.2015 is exparte, there appears to exist an error since the order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. appears to have been passed, after hearing the opposite party no.2.

¶14

However, insofar as the other reason given in the impugned order is concerned, it cannot be said that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, while rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had given any reason to disbelieve the allegations made in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or to hold that no offence is made out.

¶15

As to the other submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, no observation is required to be made at this stage since the matter has only been required to be reconsidered in light of the reasoning that the order dated 30.09.2015 is unreasoned.

¶16

Thus, no further observation is required to be made at this stage. It is left open to the learned Magistrate to reconsider the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and to pass appropriate orders on that application strictly in accordance with law.

¶17

The instant application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.7.2018 Lbm/-

Pratap Chanadra Verma and another v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap Chanadra Verma and another v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charan Singh and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nand Kishore and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Afjal @Babalu Vs State of Up and Another

Sandeep Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Parmatma Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Babu Diwakar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another