This court dismissed a criminal revision filed against an order dropping proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The bench held there was a real dispute regarding property title and no evidence of dispossession. Thus, the revision lacked merit.
Revision dismissed; stay order, if any, stands vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2536 of 2010
Revisionist :- Tanveer Saleem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anup Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.P.Tewari,S.S.Tripathi
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Anup Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Vide order dated 12.07.2010, this Court has passed an order of status quo till the next date of listing. Thereafter, it appears that on none of the date when it has been listed, the said order is extended. This revision is of the year, 2010 and it is still awaiting for admission.
This revision has been filed against judgement and order dated 09.04.2010 passed by City Magistrate, Gorakhpur, in case no.32 of 2010, under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C., P.S.Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur by which proceedings under section 145 (1) Cr.P.C., has been dropped on account of civil case is pending in respect of dispute of immoveable property.
On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in favour of opposite party no.3, Smt. Gulnar, a registered will deed was executed by her father on 07.10.2004. The disputed property in respect of which the case is pending before the learned Magistrate.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I found that dispute regarding title is pending prior to 31.04.2009 and there exists a
real dispute with regard to title of the disputed property and there was no evidence that the first party was ever dispossessed from the disputed property two months before nor he was occupying the same prior to that in such situation the proceedings have been dropped.
In view of this, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned, nor there is any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision lacks merit, hence the same is dismissed.
Stay order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 11.12.2019
PKC
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any irregularity or illegality in the order which dropped proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
Whether the civil dispute regarding title of immoveable property existed prior to 31.04.2009
Whether valid grounds exist for entertaining this criminal revision against the order dropping the proceedings
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
