Dismissed

Raj Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2020CRLR/973/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against an order dismissing a complaint for observing that the dispute was civil in nature and the complainant failed to produce the alleged sale deed, the High Court upheld the Magistrate's order as valid and legal, noting the dispute involved an agreement to sell.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was rejected on the ground that it lacked merit and was against a legal order dismissing a complaint in a civil dispute.

Raj Nath Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 973 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Raj Nath Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist through Video Conferencing and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A., who is present in the Chamber.

¶6

This criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 23.01.2020 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Allahabad, by which the complaint case of the complainant was rejected by the learned Magistrate.

¶7

The prosecution case in brief is that on 5.10.2015 at about 6:30 a.m. in the morning the revisionist was going to attend the natural call. On the way Babloo Mishra, Jata Shankar and Krishna Pratap Singh met him and at some distance Lalit Tripathi too met and all the persons made conversations with him separately at least for 10-15 minutes. Thereafter, they took the complainant (revisionist) to the orchard and they all consumed liquor together. After consuming liquor, the complainant (revisionist) was taken away towards TehsilSoraon. At that time, the complainant was in sense and asked where they were going. Then, the accused persons said to him, "Let us go" and proposed to take more drink. After sometime, when he got drunk, all the accused persons threatened him to make assertion before 'Sahab' that he had received money and being in the state of intoxication he executed the sale-deed. The complainant-revisionist has stated in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. specifically that when he returned home and got conscious, then, he told that opposite parties got executed the sale-deed in their favour on his being in intoxicated state.

¶8

From a perusal of this petition it reveals that an application was filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, which was converted into a complaint case and statements of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the evidence, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C mentioning that the revisionist has not filed a copy of the alleged sale deed; the paper filed by him is agreement to sell;

¶9

the dispute raised by him is of civil nature and he has right to file a civil suit. It was further observed by the learned Magistrate that there was no sufficient ground to summon the opposite parties. As such the complainant was rejected by the impugned order.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence available on record while dismissing the complaint case.

¶11

On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the impugned order is perfectly legal and valid as it was passed by the learned Magistrate after considering the evidence available on record.

¶12

I have perused the papers and the impugned order. From the impugned order, it appears that the complainant and the revisionist have entered into an agreement to sell and that agreement to sell is still in existence and has not been declared null and void by the competent Court of law till date. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is perfectly valid and legal and no illegality or irregularity is apparent in the impugned order.

¶13

In the result, the revision lacks merit and is accordingly, rejected.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.6.2020 R./

Raj Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kasim and Another Vs State of U.P.

Aklakh Khan @ Eklakh Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Rajeev and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanika Swami Vs State of Up and Another

Constable Surendra Singh Vs State of Up and Another