Ratish Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

The present criminal revision has been preferred to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 14.1.2026, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), IVth, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Misc. Case No. 1256 of 2025 (Ratish Vs. Manoj and others), under Sections 319 (2), 318(4), 338, 109, 336(3), 340(2), 316(2) BNS, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order dated 14.1.2026 is un-justiceable, illegal and arbitrary order, hence liable to be set aside. The revisionist/Ratish Kumar Singh has filed a complaint against opposite party nos. 2 to 5 under Section 173(4) of BNSS which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 14.1.2026. The alleged incident is dated 15.5.2025 at 8.00 a.m in the morning. It is submitted that the revisionist/complainant is having bhumidhari Arazi No. 222M situated in Mauza Pure Teeka, outside of Town. The pattidar of the complainant, Manoj Singh, Vinod Singh and Santosh Singh, sons of Kamlesh Singh and Krishna Pratap Singh alias Kishan son of Manoj Singh had fabricated documents and got the map passed in the year 2019. The opposite parties tried to raise constructions on the basis of said forged and fabricated document in May 2025. When it was objected to by the revisionist, then the opposite parties with intention to kill him had

CRLR No. 1566 of 2026

2

attacked on 15.5.2025 around 8.00 a.m on the revisionist by Lathi-danda and spade.

From the record, it appears that a civil suit is already filed by the revisionist against the opposite parties which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadohi being Original Suit No. 358 of 2025 (Ratish Singh Vs. Manoj Singh and others). The revisionist/complainant has filed the said suit for permanent injunction that the defendant nos. 1 to 4/opposite party nos. 2 to 5 shall be permanently restrained not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the revisionist over the land in dispute nor raise any construction. The land in dispute is the same which is subject matter of the present complaint. An FIR is also registered on 18.11.2025 about the incident dated 4.11.2025 about same land in question against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 under Section 115(2), 329, 308, 351(3) of BNS.

In paragraph no. 6 of the complaint, it is the self averment made by the complainant/revisionist that opposite party nos. 2 to 5 are trying to take illegal possession of the land in question and to close the dispute, they are demanding an amount of Rs. 25 lacs. It is clear that a civil suit as well as criminal case is already pending between the parties. They belong to same family lineage and pattidar. The FIR is also already registered about the same land in question and the matter is under investigation.

The revisionist is having all opportunities and record his statement during investigation. The revisionist/complainant has filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking that the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 shall be permanently restrained not to raise any construction or to interfere into the peaceful possession of the revisionist in the property in dispute.

In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. The revision is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed.

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶19

March 9, 2026 sfa/

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ratish Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others