Anil Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2024A227/270/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners seek quashing of a revisional court order that partly reversed a police rejection of Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings, directing use of an exit per claimed mutual partition. Petitioners deny any mutual partition. Court deferred consideration, sought counter affidavits, and imposed interim status quo.

What did the court decide?

Status quo to be maintained by parties on the spot till next listing; matter put up for 22.03.2024.

Anil Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 270 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Gupta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Divyanshu Mishra,Dinesh Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Chandra Shekhar Singh Yadav,Muzaffar Zulfiqar Naqvi

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Chandra Shekhar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 & 3 and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed with following main prayer:-

¶8

"(i) Quash/set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Lucknow, contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow vide order dated 06.06.2023 on the ground that the dispute between the parties is already pending before the competent civil court for adjudication of their civil rights and the parties were directed to maintain the peace on the spot. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2023, the opposite party no.2, filed criminal revision against it, which was partly allowed vide order dated 19.12.2023 and it was directed by the revisional court that the parties may use the exit as per the mutual partition.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no mutual partition between the parties. The revisional court had erred while giving the above finding.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 & 3 opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that there is a mutual partition between the parties and the parties were using their own way for exit and entry but the petitioner tried to encroach the way illegally. Thus, he submits that there is no illegality in the order dated

¶12

19.12.2023.

¶13

The matter requires consideration on the fact and law both.

¶14

Learned A.G.A.-I for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 & 3 may file counter affidavit within four weeks.

¶15

Rejoinder affidavit may also be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶16

Put up this case on 22.03.2024.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, the parties are directed to maintain status quo on the spot as on today.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.1.2024

¶19

Saurabh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Shiv Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Satya Narayan Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Bhanu Pratap Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lucknow and Anr.

Dinesh Kumar Maurya @ Dinesh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sushil Kumar Sanwal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another