Disposed

Ahalad v. Addl. Session Judge / F.T.C. First Gonda and 14 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2025CRLP/150/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of orders rejecting an investigation application and directing registration of a criminal case. The court held the petition against Article 226 rather than merits, directing the petitioner to file a fresh complaint under the B.N.S.S., 2023.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a fresh complaint under Section 2-h of the B.N.S.S., 2023 within 20 days, to be dealt with per Chapter XVI of the B.N.S.S., 2023.

Ahalad vs Addl. Session Judge / F.T.C… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1623

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 150 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Ahalad

¶5

Respondent :- Addl. Session Judge / F.T.C. First Gonda And 14 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Ahalad with the following prayers:-

¶9

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari whereby quashing the impugned orders dated 02.09.2024 as well as order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the opposite party no.2 and 1;

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party to register a case against the opposite party no.4 in the interest of justice;

¶11

(iii) Issue any other other suitable...........................case;

¶12

(iv) Allow the writ petition..........with costs."

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 21.07.2024 at about 1:50 pm. the accused persons, some of whom are also government servants and revenue officials dispossessed the informant and his family and also thrown the household material from his house and after assaulting him and his family members also detained them and challaned under Sections 126, 135 and 170 of the B.N.S.S. and has given the possession of the land which was earlier allotted to the mother of the petitioner/informant to the opposite party nos. 4 to 9.

¶14

It is further submitted that having regard to the illegal act and offence committed by the respondents an application was given to the S.P. concerned and when no proceedings were initiated

¶15

against the private respondents an application under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. [156(3) Cr.P.C.] was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda. However, the same has been rejected without assigning any cogent reasons and without application of judicial mind.

¶16

It is further submitted that feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/informant/complainant preferred a revision against the impugned order dated 02.09.2024, however, the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2024.

¶17

It is vehemently submitted that neither in the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda nor while passing the order by the revisional Court, the grievance of the petitioner has been addressed in right perspective. Thus, both the impugned orders be set-aside and the orders for investigation be passed with regard to the application moved by the petitioner to the S.P. concerned.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that on an application given by the aggrieved persons, the illegal possession of the petitioner/complainant was removed from the land of public utility owned by the Gram Saba and the matter is purely of civil in nature and has been given the colour of criminal offences while the private respondents no. 10 to 15 were discharging their official duties and, therefore, no offence has been committed by them.

¶19

I have considered the material brought on record and the impugned orders in the background of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Priyanka Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and others'; MANU/SC/0344/2015 as well as Full Bench Judgment of this court passed in 'Ram Babu Gupta vs. State of U.P.' ; 2001 (43) ACC 50 and a Division Bench Judgment of this Court passed in Sukhwasi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) Cri lj. 472' , I do not find any ground on the basis of which any interference could be made in the impugned orders. However, even if an application moved by an aggrieved person under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. [156(3) Cr.P.C.] has been rejected by the Magistrate concerned, his right to prefer a complaint as defined under Section 2-d of the Cr.P.C. may not be extinguished and he may very well institute a complaint which may be taken to its logical end by the Magistrate concern having regard to the provisions contained in the B.N.S.S., 2023.

¶20

Thus, the instant petition is finally disposed of in terms that if the petitioner moves any complaint, as defined under Section

¶21

2-h of the B.N.S.S., 2023, within 20 days from today, the same shall be dealt with the procedure provided under Chapter XVI of the B.N.S.S., 2023.

¶22

It is clarified that this Court has not opined anything on the merits of the case and it would be free for the Magistrate concerned to pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law as and when any such complaint is moved by the petitioner.

¶23

Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Praveen

¶24

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

Ahalad v. Addl. Session Judge / F.T.C. First Gonda and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahalad v. Addl. Session Judge / F.T.C. First Gonda and 14 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anshu Mishra Thru. Her Husband Gaurav Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Mohd. Kaleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Kaleem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ahalad Vs Addl. Session Judge / F.T.C. First Gonda and 14 Others

Aman Gautam @ Aman Singh @ K.K. Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Smt. Sonika Pathak Thru. Her Husband Dinesh Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others