Ashiq Ali vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3396 ALL

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 3396 ALL
Judgement Date : 2 August, 2011

Allahabad High Court

Ashiq Ali vs State Of U.P. And Others on 2 August, 2011

Bench: S.C. Agarwal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14725 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Ashiq Ali
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Aslam Ali
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.2.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau in criminal revision no.138 of 2009 (Ashiq Ali Vs. Pheku and others).

From the allegations made in the application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., it appears that the opposite party no.2 agreed to sell the disputed property to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.4000/- and a sum of Rs.3000/- was paid as earnest money. When the sale deed was not executed, the petitioner filed a suit against opposite party no.2, which was decreed on 28.1.1997 on the basis of compromise. It was decided that opposite party no.2 would execute the sale deed of the property within 15 days failing which the petitioner would be entitled to get the decree executed through Court.

No execution was ever filed. The application was moved on the ground that on 1.1.2009, the opposite party no.2 sold the property to third party and thus committed fraud with the petitioner.

In pursuance of the compromise, the petitioner was entitled to execute the decree through Court, but he did not do so. In these circumstance, the opposite party no.2 was not obliged to wait for eternity. He has every right to sell his property to person of his choice and from the facts no criminal offence is disclosed. The matter is of civil nature. The application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected and revision has also been dismissed. No interference is required. Application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was simply an abuse of the process of the Court.

Writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.8.2011