Disposed

Dhirendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024A482/6765/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS), the High Court considered a petition challenging orders in a complaint case regarding a disputed land agreement. The applicant argued the matter is a civil dispute. The court stayed the proceedings citing Kunti case and directed counter-affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the proceedings of the impugned case pending hearing of counter affidavits.

Dhirendra Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6765 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Dhirendra Bahadur Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

1. Heard.

¶6

2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.-528 B.N.S.S. has been filed challenging the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Criminal Revision No.08 of 2024 as well as the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No.15009 of 2023.

¶7

3. Issue notice to respondent No.2.

¶8

4. List on the date indicated in the notice.

¶9

5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession of certain piece of land for which there was an agreement for sale between the father of the petitioner and the father of respondent No.2. The father of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner continued to remain in possession but the sale deed could not be executed.

¶10

6. Considering this on 17.07.2023 an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, whereby it was indicated that respondent No.2 would be paying a total amount of Rs.6 Lakh for the aforesaid piece of land and the petitioner would be handing back the said piece of the land to respondent No.2.

¶11

7. It is stated that in order to wriggle out the said agreement, a complaint was filed by respondent No.2 of which cognizance has been taken by the learned court by issuance of the summoning order dated

¶12

03.11.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition.

¶13

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed a Revision No.8 of 2024, which has been rejected.

¶14

9. Contention is that from the settlement as has been entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 on 17.07.2024, it is apparent that there is a civil dispute between the parties, which is sought to be converted into a criminal dispute and into criminal proceedings, which is legally impermissible keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Kunti & Anr vs State of U.P. & Anr. : Criminal Appeal No.1380 of 2023 , decided on 03.05.2023.

¶15

10. Considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kunti (supra) prima facie a case for interference is made out. As such till the next date, the proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed.

¶16

11. Let counter affidavit(s) may be filed within a period of 4 weeks to which reply may be filed within next two weeks.

¶17

12. List thereafter.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 prateek

¶19

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dhirendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ameen Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Anupam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Anil Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Dev Prakash Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home, Lko

Sayem Yazdani vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Hawaldar Pandey Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lko. and Others