Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2022CRLR/1404/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. that directed parties to produce evidence. The court held the order was interlocutory as it did not finally determine rights, rendering the revision not maintainable for procedural reasons amidst party non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed as not maintainable against interlocutory order calling for evidence.

Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1404 of 2019 Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Chandra,Rameshwar Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶3

Case called out. None responds for the revisionists and respondent no.2.

¶4

Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1 is present.

¶5

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 15.01.2019 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Robertsganj, Sonebhadra in Case No.4606 of 2015, Ashok Kumar Tiwari vs. Manoj Kumar Tiwari and others, under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

¶6

Before I proceed to decide the case, some facts may be noted that this revision is pending since April, 2019; none is appearing for the revisionists despite affording several opportunities for them to appear since last several dates; on previous occasion i.e. on 29.11.2022 it was made clear that if the revisionist or any other parties fail to appear, the revision may be decided on merit.

¶7

Relevant facts giving rise to this revision, as revealed from record are as below:-

¶8

Respondent no.2 filed an application before S.D.M. Robertsganj, Sonebhadra alleging attempted illegal dispossession from his 1/3 share of the disputed land by the revisionists. A chalani report was submitted before the SDM under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. and the revisionists were called upon to file their objection. The revisionists submitted that they have been in possession of their share only and that there has not been any real dispute; the respondent no.2 had filed a civil suit before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sonebhadra which was registered as Original Suit No.182 of 2015. The S.D.M. court passed an order dated 15.01.2019. Against this order, the present revision has been preferred.

¶9

The case of the revisionists is that admittedly when a civil suit was pending and that when he successfully demonstrated that there was no probability of breach of peace, hence, the order dated 15.01.2019 was uncalled for and not sustainable in law and on facts.

¶10

From the impugned order, it is quite obvious that on the directions of the High Court, a team was constituted for the purpose of preparing a report on the question of attachment. In continuation thereof, the disputed property was attached and a receiver was appointed and the case was fixed for leading the evidence. In essence, by the impugned order, the Court merely called upon the parties to adduce their respective evidence. The parties still had opportunity to prove their respective claims. The order, in my view, was purely interlocutory in nature. Hence, the criminal revision is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 13.12.2022/Asha

¶12

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.12.14 16:35:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Kumar @ Devendra Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, U.P. Lko. and Anr.

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another