Dismissed

Devendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2023A227/4609/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Article 227 writ petition, the High Court examined arguments challenging a lower court order dismissing a summoning application as essentially civil. Finding the petitioner failed to provide factual or legal grounds for arbitrary interpretation, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it lacked merit and no ground was found to interfere with the impugned order.

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192521

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4609 of 2023 Petitioner :- Devendra Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Lavkush Kumar Bhatt

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bind, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohd. Zafar, Advocate holding brief for Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The material facts are as below:-

¶7

(i) The petitioner moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the respondent no. 2-Atiraj Singh @ Maharj Singh with the allegations in nutshell, that he and his three brothers executed an unregistered agreement to sell on 14.08.1995 and took advance of Rs. 29,000/-. This agreement was executed for sale of certain immovable property for a total consideration of Rs. 58,000/-. It is alleged in the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that all the sellers executed sale deed in favour of the complainant on 06.08.2001, except Atiraj Singh @ Maharj Singh. In this manner, he committed breach of trust and also misappropriated the advance money of Rs. 29,000/-.

¶8

(ii) The learned Magistrate heard the matter and treated the application as complaint. The evidence under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was produced. The accused-Atiraj Singh @ Maharj Singh was summoned for an offence under sections 406, 506 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Farrukhabad. The accused preferred a criminal revision no. 124 of 2021 challenging the summoning order. The revisional court took a view that the matter is essentially civil in nature. The revisional court, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, remanded the case for hearing afresh and pass an order again. Now the complainant has filed this petition challenging the impugned order.

¶9

I went through all the averments made in the petition. The petitioner has used such words i.e., arbitrary exercise of power, erroneous assumption, arbitrary and capricious exercise of jurisdiction, ignoring the facts, circumstances and evidence of the case, patently erroneous finding, illegal and arbitrary. However, he has not been able to show a single ground i.e., factual or legal which would justify the use of such words in the petition and prompt this court to interfere in the order, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of powers. This petition lacks merit and is, hereby dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 6.10.2023 #Vikram/-

¶12

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Ashish Pathak Vs Smt. Priya Pathak

Akash Varma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Daood Mansoori and 2 Others Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prince Rajput Vs State of U.P.

Smt Kunchan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Renu Singh and 3 Others Vs Ravi Pratap Singh and Another