Dismissed

Manbhawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2024/437/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed under Article 226 challenging the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The court held that the complainant filed the application primarily to pressure authorities regarding a land encroachment dispute, finding no genuine criminal incident and thus upholding the trial court's decision to reject the application.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the impugned order dated 09.11.2023 rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Manbhawati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1341

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 437 of 2024 Appellant :- Manbhawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mohammad Riyaz Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 09.11.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in respect of Application U/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No.339/2023 Police Station- Tanda, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent no.2 is working as Area Lekhpal in the village of the appellant and he demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe for granting lease of the land which was in the possession of the appellant, and thereafter, appellant informed to the other family members and they made query from respondent no.2/ Area Lakhpal, on which, he felt offended, thereafter, on 12.03.2023, at about 02:00 PM, respondent no.2 came to the house of appellant along with respondent no.3/Numesh Jaiswal, Headmaster of the primary school and two-three other unknown persons and started abusing the appellant by passing some caste related words and gave warning that she will not be allowed to live on the land, thereafter, they also destroyed the temporary thatch of the appellant and when husband of the appellant tried to object and requested that he did not have any other place of residence then respondent no.2 as well as other accused persons entered into the house of appellant, seeing that, the daughter of the appellant also tried to intervene in the issue then she was beaten by the accused persons and her clothes were also torn, thereafter, they tried to outrage her modesty. On the alarm raised by the appellant and her family, several villagers reached at the spot then the accused persons went back by giving threat.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant made complaint to the Police Control Room at 112 and the police reached at the spot but the accused persons were not present there and the police had not taken any action against the

¶9

accused persons. He further submitted that neither the police had taken any action nor any medico-legal examination of the daughter of the appellant was conducted, thereafter, she was medically examined on 16.03.2023 and she reported the complaint of pain on her body. He further submitted that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 26.09.2023 by the appellant, the police report was sought by the Magistrate, thereafter, considering the police report, the aforesaid application under Section 156(3) was rejected. He further submitted that in the police report, it was stated that the appellant had encroached the land which was recorded in the name of school and on the request of the Area Lekhpal, police team also went there for removal of the encroachment of the appellant over the alleged land which was recorded in the name of school but no alleged incident was taken place. He further submitted that in case, there was any encroachment then there is a legal remedy available under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the proceeding was to be initiated by the Revenue Authorities, therefore, trial court wrongly rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the appellant, in such circumstances, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of appellant and submitted that the police has reported that on 12.03.2023, on the request of Revenue Authorities, police went there for removal of the encroachment which was made by the appellant over the school property and the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved after six month from the date of alleged incident, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the appellant.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, complaint, as per the impugned order, the alleged incident was taken place on 12.03.2023 and the police had reported that on 12.03.2023, on the request of Revenue Authorities, the police team reached at the spot to remove the encroachment made by the appellant over the school property and no skirmish was taken place; only with the intention to make pressure on the authorities, the complaint was filed, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present appeal has no substance and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 15.2.2024/V. Sinha

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manbhawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manbhawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shubham Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pankaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Narayan Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Tribhuvan Prasad Singh @ T.P. Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.