Ramchandar Agarwal vs State of U.P.

Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

This Criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist for setting aside the order dated 04.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, District Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 337 of 2012 (Ram Chandra Agarwal v. Umesh Pratap Singh and others).

It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist is that a bare perusal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses commission of a cognisable offence but the court below has rejected the said application vide its order dated 4.9.2012 on the ground that this matter pertains to the disobedience of the injunction decree of the Civil Court and the decree holder has alternative remedy under Order 21 C.P.C. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate did not rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate is without application of mind and against the preposition of law. It is also submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is erroneous and against the procedure of law on the face of record, as such, the same is liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 17.

So far as the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the revisionist is concerned, this citation pertains to the complaint case. Thus, it is not applicable in the instant matter.

On perusal of the record, it appears that there is a long drawn civil litigation regarding subject matter of the suit and the revisionist has also approached the Government of U.P. in this regard (Annexure- 3 to the affidavit filed in support of the revision).

The judgment and order dated 12.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1, Bareilly in Original Suit No. 246 of 2002, Ram Bharose Lal Dharmarth Trust, Bareilly and another v. Nagar Nigam, Bareilly (Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of revision) is a well discussed and elaborate judgment regarding subject matter of the suit.

All the facts have been discussed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Bareilly in the impugned order dated 04.09.2012 on the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareily and thereafter discussing the subject matter of dispute has arrived at a right conclusion. The impugned order suffers from no illegality or perversity. The revision lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed.

Dismissed.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.