Remanded

Girish Chandra @ Gore Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2018CRLR/662/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed to set aside Additional Sessions Judge's order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Court found no illegality in impugned order. Directed Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide matter afresh within two months and maintained status quo for nine weeks.

What did the court decide?

Sub Divisional Magistrate directed to decide matter afresh within two months; status quo maintained for nine weeks.

Girish Chandra @ Gore Lal and Another Vs State of U.P… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 60

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 662 of 2013

¶3

Revisionist :- Girish Chandra @ Gore Lal And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Yadav,Lalji Yadav,Yashpal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Niraj Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Yashpal, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Niraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3.

¶6

The present revision has been filed by the revisionists for setting aside the judgment and order dated 13.02.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Revision No.101 of 2012 (Ram Kishore Vs. Girish Chandra) arising out of Section 145 Cr.P.C., P.S. Kakwan, Kanpur Nagar and restore the judgment and order dated 10.9.2012 passed by Deputy Collector, Kanpur Nagar in case No.03 of 2012 (Mani Ram Vs. Girish Chandra).

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that Revisional Court has proceeded to pass order on the basis of certain new documents, which were not the part of record before the Deputy Collector, who has initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and passed the order dated 10.9.2012.

¶8

On being confronted by Court, learned counsel for the revisionists could not show any such document which is not the part of record before the Sub Divisional Magistrate while passing the order dated 10.9.2012 and has been considered in its impugned order dated 13.02.2013.

¶9

I have perused the order dated 10.9.2012 passed by Deputy Collector, Kanpur Nagar and order dated 13.2.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat. Revisional Court has only remanded the matter back to Sub Divisional Magistrate for passing a fresh order in light of the direction given in its order dated 13.2.2013.

¶10

I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 13.02.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat, therefore, no interference is required.

¶11

Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to decide the matter afresh as directed by the Revisional Court within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶12

Parties are directed to produce the order of this Court before the Sub Divisional Magistrate within one week from today and for nine weeks from today status quo shall be maintained over the property in dispute.

¶13

The Criminal Revision is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 15.11.2018 Junaid

Girish Chandra @ Gore Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Chandra @ Gore Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Shariq Ahmad Siddiqui and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Gaurav Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Heman Vs State of U.P.

Sh. Sunil Kumar Garg Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Delip Kumar Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another