# Ramchandar Agarwal Revisionist v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 669 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-07-18 - **Bench:** Prabhat Chandra Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramchandar-agarwal-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-53800 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses commission of a cognizable 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 670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 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.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. The impugned order suffers from no illegality or perversity. The revision lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 17. ## Text 7 All. Ramchandar Agarwal Vs State Of U.P. 669 29. A bare perusal of facts would reveal that dispute is essentially about a plot of land, title of which can not be adjudicated by the criminal court. Both brothers are fighting for ownership and possession of flat concerned. Rights over this flat will have to be decided by civil court. Invocation of jurisdiction of criminal court is merely a ploy to pressurize the applicant. It is admitted case that families of both the brothers were living in the same flat therefore, nobody can accuse other of looting or robbing goods enjoyed by both persons. In any case, Police personnel themselves were not satisfied with the correctness of allegations. Instead of advising the brothers to get the dispute adjudicated by a competent civil court, the Police personnel became interested in one brother or other at various points of time. It is my firm opinion that this criminal case is nothing but a ploy to put pressure for settling the civil dispute and that entire procedure is vitiated by mala fide. This criminal case was instituted with mala fide intention of wreaking vengeance upon the applicant due to private and personal grudge. 30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned charge-sheet dated 18.7.2013 and additional charge-sheet dated 17.9.2013 under sections 392,452, 342, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC arising out of FIR dated 23.1.2010 registered as Crime No. 33 of 2010 under sections 323, 342, 392, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sector-49, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar pending as case no. 1383 of 2013 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar are quashed. ---------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 3388 Of 2012 Ramchandar Agarwal ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. ...Opposite party Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Vipin Kumar, Counsel for the Opposite party: A.G.A, Anil Tiwari This Criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist that a bare perusal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses commission of a cognizable 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 670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 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.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. The impugned order suffers from no illegality or perversity. The revision lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 17. (Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 2. 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 Vs. Umesh Pratap Singh and others). 3. 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 cognizable 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. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 17. 5. 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. 6. 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). 7. 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 7 All. Govardhan Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 671 Dharmarth Trust, Bareilly and another Vs. 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. 8. 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. 9. Dismissed. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ----------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Revision No.- 3683 Of 2014 Govardhan Singh ...Revisionist Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsels for the Revisionist: Hemendra Pratap Singh, S.K. Pandey-II For the Opposite Parties: Govt. Advocate Procedure: Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Mathura in S.T. No. 53 of 2013 (State v. Digambar & Ors.), whereby the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning accused persons was rejected. Issue: Whether rejection of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is justified when the proposed accused were named in the F.I.R. and assigned specific roles in the oral evidence of P.W.-1, supported by injury reports. Headnotes: The proposed accused persons were specifically named in the F.I.R. and their active participation was clearly reiterated in the oral testimony of P.W.-1 (informant). The injury reports of the injured witnesses