Sayed Mohammad Kabir Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Applicant- complainant has approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned order dated 26.5.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.4, Barabanki in Criminal Revision No.09 of 2017, titled Sayed Mohd. Kabir Vs. State of U.P. , whereby the order dated 9.12.2016 dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. passed by Judicial Magistrate, court no.27, Barabanki in Criminal Case No.119 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 379 IPC, registered at Police Station Sanchighat, District Barabanki, has been upheld.

¶10

Applicant- complainant brought a complaint before the Magistrate with the allegations that plot bearing no.610 (ancestral property) was inherited by his father through a 'hibanama' (gift deed) executed by applicant's grand- mother and the civil suit in respect of the said property is pending before the civil court, but despite that the accused persons sold the said property in connivance with each other.

¶11

Examining the pre summoning evidence adduced by the complainant, the Magistrate vide order dated 9th December, 2016 proceeded to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. as no prima facie case for issuance of process against the accused was made out for lack of evidence.

¶12

Aggrieved against the order dated 9th December, 2016, a revision petition was carried by the applicant- complainant before the court of Sessions and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 26th May, 2017.

¶13

Assailing these orders, the complainant invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C by filing this petition in the year 2016 and notice to the opposite side no.2 was issued, and thereafter, the case has been adjourned repeatedly.

¶14

Today when the case is called, no one has appeared on behalf of the applicantcomplainant.

¶15

A482 No. 5618 of 2017

¶16

2

¶17

A perusal of the order dated 9th December, 2016 would show that the Magistrate has carefully analyzed the allegations in the complaint as well as the supportive evidence adduced by the complainant while holding that the surroundings of the property mentioned in the gift- deed does not match with the alleged property sold by the accused and noticing the material discrepancies in the evidence, it was held that the case of the complainant falls short of making out of prima facie case for issuance of process. The observations of the trial court have been upheld by the revisional court, wherein it is held that the rights of the parties in the property would be determined by the civil court only and thus, finding no ground to interfere in the order dated 9th December, 2016, the revisional court also proceeded to dismiss the revision petition on 26th May, 2017.

¶18

The observations in the impugned orders are based upon correct appreciation of evidence, therefore, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶19

As a result, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶20

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶21

November 27, 2025 Raj

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sayed Mohammad Kabir v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Mohammad Kabir v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X Minor vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gunjan Shukla @ Gunjan Garg vs State of Up and Another

Pankaj Kumar Gautam and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Usha Nigam Vs State of U.P. and Others

Manish Rai and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Ors.