Satish Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22089

Court No. - 12

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3300 of 2025

Applicant :- Satish Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Milan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Rai, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and 3 today in Court is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Mr. Ram Milan Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Rai, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant had filed a complaint 359 of 2024 (Satish Kumar Mishra Vs. Smt. Maya & others) before the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Ayodhya under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that on the neighbouring plot, which is owned by the applicant, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3/ accused persons had got the sale deed executed in their favour on 22.06.2020 on Gata No. 54, which is registered as a garden on which 85 trees of Mango are existing. It was the case of the applicant that said sale deed has been executed fraudulently without paying the consideration as stated therein to the applicant, and though the cheque numbers were duly recorded in the sale deed but none of those were given to the applicant as consideration of sale deed. It is due to the aforesaid facts, that the application was filed.

¶9

The statement of the complainant was duly recorded before the learned Magistrate in support of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and the learned Judicial Magistrate-III by means of the impugned order dated 01.06.2024 rejected the said application on the ground that the dispute between the applicant and the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 was a civil dispute and in which no criminal proceedings deserves to be initiated and accordingly rejected the said application.

¶10

The applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2024 filed Criminal Revision No. 140 of 2024 (Satish Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-II, Ayodhya. The revisional court also duly considered the entire set of facts and also considered the fact that the sale deed was executed with regard to Gata No. 437 for area of 1364 square feet for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-, which was taken by the applicant before execution of the said sale deed and the said sale deed was got recorded in the name of Smt. Maya. Another sale deed was also got registered on 13.07.2022 with regard to Gata No. 54 for a sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- and another third sale deed was executed on 12.04.2023. With regard to third sale deed, it was stated that eight cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each has been given to the application for a sale consideration, which the applicant denied receiving. Apart from the aforesaid fourth sale deed was also registered on 11.09.2023 for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and again similar allegations were made that the applicant had not received consideration of the said sale.

¶11

During revision, the opposite party no. 1 has put in appearance and stated that that the entire sale consideration has been given to the applicant and only thereafter the sale deed was executed. It was further stated that after the sale deed the land has been mutated in the name of the opposite party and the

¶12

trial court duly took cognizance of the fact that once the land has been transferred by a registered document and the same can be undone only by cancellation of sale deed and not on account of any criminal proceedings and duly considered the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2013 (11) SCC 673 where the Supreme Court has stated that it was the duty of Court to see whether the dispute is a civil dispute or a criminal dispute before entertaining such an application.

¶13

Apart from the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for applicant has produced before us a copy of the plaint, which was filed by the applicant for cancellation of the sale deed in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hawali, Faizabad, which has been registered as Suit No. 25 of 2024. Accordingly, the applicant has already approached the court of competent jurisdiction with regard to his claim then the sale deed was entered into fraudulently and adequate consideration was not granted to him.

¶14

Considering the entire material as well as impugned order, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the finding returned by the learned Magistrate as well as by the revisional court that the dispute is a purely civil dispute as to whether the applicant has received adequate consideration for the sale deed executed in favour of the private opposite party.

¶15

This issue can be adequately decided and considered by the trial court in civil proceedings, which has been initiated at the behest of the applicant and such an issue cannot be adjudicated in criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in discretion exercised by the trial court as well as by the revision court and considering the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra (supra) , the proceedings are primarily of civil nature for which the trial court as well as

¶16

the revisional court has thought it fit not to entertain as a complaint preferred by the applicant.

¶17

For the reasons as stated aforesaid, this application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being devoid of merits is therefore, dismissed.

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 Virendra

¶20

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

Satish Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Naseem Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Satish Chandra Vs Pawan Kumar and Another

Deeleep Chandra Vs Pawan Kumar and Another

Kalveer @ Brahmyuman and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Nafisul Hasan @ Nafisul Hasan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another