Dismissed

Vishwajeet Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2025A482/1857/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought quashing of orders refusing to direct FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC in a dispute he alleged involved cognizable offences. The High Court found the dispute was essentially a revenue matter with no material disclosing any criminal offence and dismissed the Section 482 application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vishwajeet Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6116

¶2

Court No. - 30

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1857 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vishwajeet Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chhote Lal Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 31.8.2021 passed by learned 9th Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 49/2021 (Vishwajeet Tiwari vs. Ram Sanwarey & others) as well as impugned judgement and order dated 14.3.2022 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-9th, Faizabad in Criminal Revision No. 141 of 2021 (Vishwajeet Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others). It is further prayed that the court concerned may be directed to dispose of the application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed by the applicant afresh.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order is apparently illegal and arbitrary and is without application of mind. He has further submitted that learned Magistrate ought to look into the matter whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out or not and after perusing the material evidence, he ought to direct to register an FIR.

¶9

On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that this is a revenue dispute between the parties and the applicant is trying to give criminal colour to this dispute.

¶10

I have perused the application under Section 156(3) CrPC as well as the impugned order.

¶11

It is apparent that the dispute is pertaining to revenue and there is no material to show that any criminal offence is made out on the plain reading.

¶12

In view of the above, this Court finds that the instant application under Section 482 CrPC lacks merit and consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶13

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶14

Consigned to records.

¶15

Order Date :- 29.1.2025 Shravan

¶16

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

Vishwajeet Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vishwajeet Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Agarwal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bhagwan Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Shankar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bhuli Prasad Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Avashesh Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Deptt., U.P. Lko. and Others

Smt. Gudiya Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Anr.