The applicant challenged an order treating a procedure as a complaint case. The Special Judge held Section 190 CrPC afforded three courses of action and the course adopted was valid. The application was dismissed for lack of merits. No interim injunction orders pertained to this appeal.
No relief. The application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.
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.
Reserved on 24.3.2021 Delivered on 16.6.2021
Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6049 of 2020
Applicant :- Braj Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- In Person,Basdeo Nishad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Moeez Uddin
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1 of 5
favour of the applicant on 21.11.2011. The accused Bajrang Bahadur Patel and seven others, in violation of the interim order, harvested the crop over the property in question complaining about which, an application was filed on 29.6.2015 under Section 156 (3) CrPC for registration of the FIR for the recovery of theft property. The said application was rejected and the case was registered as a complaint case by means of an order dated 22.8.2015, which was challenged before this Court by filing an application under Section 482 CrPC No. 13529 of 2016.
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 22.08.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 1358 of 2015, under Sections 147, 382, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) ST/SC (PA) Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Allahabad.
The applicant is a bhoomidhar with transferable rights, in possession over Plot No. 261, ad measuring 0.334 hectare situated at Village Narai, Police Station Phoolpur, District Allahabad. The name of the applicant is duly recorded in the Khasra and Khatauni. One Bajrang Bahadur having criminal history and being convicted for life under Section 302/34 I.P.C. upon being released on bail by this Court committed several cognizable offences including that of land grabbing.
It is alleged that Bajrang Bahadur and others started interfering with the plot of the applicant for extraneous consideration, the applicant, therefore, was constrained to institute a suit being Suit No. 2568 of 2011 (Braj Lal Versus Bajrang Bahadur and others), in which, learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Allahabad granted temporary injunction on 21.11.2011 in favour of the applicant.
2 of 5
It is alleged in the complaint that Bajrang Bahadur and seven others on 12.04.2014 at 6.00 P.M. forcefully harvested the wheat crops standing on the plot on the strength of country-made pistol and bombs. The applicant informed the police but no First Information Report was lodged, thereafter, the applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking a direction from the learned Magistrate to direct the police officer to register a First Information Report against the accused persons. The police officer submitted a report that no such incident had occurred and the complaint is false.
Learned Magistrate treated the application as a complaint case. Aggrieved, the applicant is before this Court. On 02.05.2016, learned A.G.A. was directed to seek instruction from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad. Upon instruction, the concerned Thana has informed that there is dispute, inter se, parties; Bajrang Bahadur is having criminal antecedent and has been convicted in a criminal case, further, Bajrang Bahadur has no concern with the plot in question as neither his name is recorded in the revenue record nor is the owner of the plot in dispute.
It is not being disputed by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is owner and in possession of the said plot and belongs to marginals section of the society.
In these circumstances, the order dated 22.08.2015 passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside, in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 164, learned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order.
Subject to the above, the application is allowed."
3 of 5
that the investigation was conducted in a arbitrary and clumsy manner. The said petition was filed on 17.12.2016 and another supplementary protest petition was filed on 29.4.2017. On the said protest petition, the impugned order came to be passed accepting the protest petition and treating the same as a complaint and further a date was fixed for recording of the evidence under Section 200 CrPC. The said order is under challenge.
4 of 5
Order Date :- 16.6.2021
vinay
5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court erred in treating the proceeding as a complaint case under Section 190 CrPC contrary to the applicant's argument under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the Special Judge acted within powers by dismissing the Application under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.Referred¶22
(2008) 7 SCC 164 · Who else cites this
Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of PoliceReferred¶27
1985 Law Suit (SC) 148
Mahendra Pal Sharma Vs. State of UPReferred¶27
2003 Cr.L.J. 698
Anand Swaroop Vs. State of UPReferred¶27
2006 0 Supreme (All) 709
Sukhwasi Vs. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶29
2008 CrLJ 472
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Braj Lal
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
