Mata Prasad Yadav @ Mata Prasad and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17002

Court No. - 14

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 222 of 2025

Applicant :- Mata Prasad Yadav @ Mata Prasad And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manuvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Present case under Section 482/528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with following main prayer:-

¶8

" That for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C., it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the cognizance order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Court No. 24, Pratapgarh which has taken on the charge sheet dated 18.08.2024 arisen out of the case crime no. 0250 of 2024, under Section 143, 434 IPC Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶9

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the proceedings of the Case No. 916 of 2025 (State Vs. Mata Prasad Yadav and others) arisen out of the case crime no. 0250 of 2024, under Section 143 & 434 IPC, Police Station Patti District Pratapgarh, which is pending before Judicial Magistrate Court no. 24, Pratapgarh, otherwise, the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a civil dispute is going on between the parties, which is being given criminal colour.

¶11

It is further submitted that a Regular Suit bearing No. 972 of 2009 was filed by the applicant nos. 1 and 2 for permanent injunction against the father of respondent no. 2 in respect of the Gata Nos. 325 and 327, which are adjacent to the Gata No. 326, which is the bone of contention in the present case. The said suit was decreed on 17.03.2021. Against which on 09.09.2024, a recall application has been preferred by the

¶12

respondent nos. 2 and 6 other persons under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.. Against which, an objection has already been filed by applicant no. 1 on 04.01.2023 and recall application is still pending.

¶13

It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has filed a Regular Suit No. 1922 of 2025 on 12.07.2022 for permanent injunction against the applicant no. 1 for Gata No. 326, which is pending. Simultaneously, an application was moved by the respondent no. 2 for demarcation under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and on 26.06.2024, the order of demarcation was passed. In pursuance thereof, the pillars were erected and within two days of erection of pillars by the revenue authorities, it is alleged in the F.I.R. that the said pillars were removed or destroyed by the applicants at 9 P.M. on 28.06.2024.

¶14

It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged with unexplained delay of one month and ten days.

¶15

It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has a remedy to move an application under Section 227 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, if he is aggrieved by any such alleged incident occurred, as mentioned in the F.I.R.

¶16

On the other hand, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and has submitted that the remedy under Section 227 (1) will not debar respondent no. 2 to file a criminal case for any offence under I.P.C.

¶17

It is further submitted that in the charge-sheet, the statement of eye-witness were filed and from that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants, hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the concerned Court for issuing summons to the applicants.

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that liberty may be given to the applicants to file bail application before the trial court which may be decided in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 S.C.R. 351: (2022) 10 SCC 51 as also to prefer a discharge application before the court below and the same may be decided expeditiously.

¶19

Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶20

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present application is

¶21

disposed of with liberty as prayed for and with a direction to the court below that if the applicants apply for bail before the Court concerned, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶22

Liberty is also granted to the applicants to move discharge application before the court below and the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶23

Taking note of the facts of the case and also the observation made in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra) , this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to observe that it is expected from the Police Officer concerned that for a period of 30 days from today or till the applicants apply for bail, whichever is earlier, he would not take any coercive action against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Ashish

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mata Prasad Yadav @ Mata Prasad and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mata Prasad Yadav @ Mata Prasad and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Mohammad Israel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Naim and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 5 Others

Rana Veer Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Lko. and Another

Virendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Crime Investigation Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Amit Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rakhi Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another