Disposed

Mohd. Arif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2024A482/2267/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order noting an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summoning order relating to a dispute involving property purchase. Court directed the opposite party to file a counter affidavit and stayed coercive steps against the applicant pending hearing.

What did the court decide?

Stayed coercive steps against the petitioner until the next date of listing.

Mohd. Arif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2267 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Arif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vimal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vimal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishwanath Nishad, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

¶7

Steps within a week. Office to proceed accordingly.

¶8

By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-

¶9

"That for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying petition duly supported by an affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to quash the summoning order dated 20-12-2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Shrawasti in case No. 18191/2021 in crime No. 360/2020 u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC P.S. Ikauna District Shrawasti (State Vs. Arif and others) and Chargesheet Bearing No. 1 Dated 21-10-2021 u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC.

¶10

It is further prays that this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to stay the operation and implementation of order dated 20-122021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Shrawasti in case No. 18191/2021 in crime No. 360/2020 u/s 420, 468, 471 IPC P.S. Ikauna District Shrawasti (State Vs. Arif and others)."

¶11

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which has been lodged pursuant to the application being filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for the alleged incident of the year 2011. The issue in question is purely of civil dispute. The present petitioner is a subsequent purchaser and has purchased the property in question with consideration and taking due diligence. The inordinate delay of about nine years has not been explained anywhere.

¶12

Matter requires consideration.

¶13

Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶14

List this petition in the week commencing 06.05.2024.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in Case No.18191 of 2021 (supra).

¶16

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶17

Order Date :- 11.3.2024 RBS/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Arif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Arif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lucknow Thru. the Manager Vs Mathura Prasad and 3 Others

U.P. State Road Transport Corp. Lko. Thru. Regional Manager Vs Kandhai

Smt. Usha Mishra and Ors. Vs National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Thru. R.M. and Ors.

Ashfee Khatoon and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow, U.P. and Another

Jaspreet Singh Sethi vs Sri Surya Pal Gangwar, D.M., Lko.

Atul Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow