Allowed

Dhanesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2025A227/2248/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 challenging a Section 133 Cr.P.C. conditional order upheld on revision, where the revisional court wrongly recorded that no objection existed to the Lekhpal's report despite an objection filed earlier. The High Court set aside the revisional order and remanded for fresh decision with status quo maintained.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dhanesh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33064

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2248 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Dhanesh And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Mishra,Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kamlesh Kumar Kanojiya

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and Sri Deepak Kumar Kulshrestha holding brief of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Kanojiya, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Present petition has been preferred with the following prayers:-

¶8

"a) set aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court no. 1, Deoria in criminal revision no. 03 of 2025 (Dhanesh and others vs. State of U.P. and another) (Annexure no. 1 to the petition) and impugned order dated 30.12.2024 passed by Up Zila Magistrate, Tehsil Salempur, District Deoria in case no. 5736/2022, computerized case no. T202205200205736 (Sarvajeet vs. Dhanesh and others) under Section 133 Cr.P.C., Police Station Khukhundu, District Deoria (Annexure no. 02 to the petition)."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 1, Deoria passed in Criminal Revision no. 03 of 2024 (Dhanesh and others vs. State of U.P. and another) wherein the specific finding has been recorded by learned revisional court that no objection has been preferred by the petitioner over the report submitted by Lekhpal dated 08.10.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought the attention of the Court over the objection which has already been preferred before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Salempur, District Deoria on dated 13.11.2024 itself, photo copy of the same is having several endorsement by the concerned official for keeping the objection in record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the finding returned by learned revisional court is purely perverse and as such order dated 12.02.2025 passed by way of upholding the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Salimpur, District Deoria is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶11

Per contra, Sri Deepak Kumar Kulshreshta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the petitioners but at the same time did not deny with the objection preferred at the behest of the petitioner to the

¶12

report submitted by concerned Lekhpal on dated 08.10.2024 which is integral part of proceeding which has been adjudicated by concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate and culminated into order dated 30.12.2024 and the finding recorded by learned revisional court seems to be perverse.

¶13

During exchange of the arguments, one fact has been revealed that the report submitted by Lekhpal on dated 08.10.2024 and the finding recorded by learned revisional court that the entire arguments along with exchange of written submission has already been completed on dated 12.12.2023 which is not at all possible since without having report of concerned Lekhpal the adjudication over the proceeding initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained.

¶14

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear, once the objection has been preferred against the report submitted by Lekhpal dated 08.10.2024 at the behest of the petitioner on dated 13.11.2024, the same has to be taken into consideration by learned concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as at the time of adjudication of the criminal revision preferred at the behest of the petitioner by learned revisional court but the same is missing by way of recording perverse finding and as such order dated 12.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court no. 01, Deoria in Criminal Revision no. 03 of 2025 is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to learned revisional court for deciding criminal revision no. 03 of 2025 (Dhanesh and others vs. State of U.P. and another) as fresh within stipulated period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶15

The instant petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶16

During pendency of the above mentioned criminal revision before learned revisional court, both the parties are hereby directed to maintain status quo as on today.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Shaswat

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dhanesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dhanesh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rinki and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Ishika Khanna and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Karuna and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt Nitu Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akanksha Minor and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shankar Lal vs State of Up and 3 Others