Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Pratap vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 4 October, 2016
Bench: Prabhat Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 596 of 2016
Revisionist :- Ravindra Pratap
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.
The delay in filing this revision having been condoned vide order of date passed on Delay Condonation Application and there being no other defect, let criminal revision be registered with regular number and old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two numbers.
Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.4.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in case No. 282 of 2016, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jaunpur, by which learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur has dismissed the complaint case under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
The brief facts giving rise to the present criminal revision are that the revisionist Ravindra Pratap s/o Ram Lakhan R/o Mohalla Rasmandal, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jaunpur on 12.11.2013 has presented an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the accused persons Ganga Ram s/o Angnu Ram, Lalji s/o Bahal, both R/o Mohalla Rasmandal, Police Station Kotwali, District- Jaunpur; Vimal Chandra s/o Chhangan Lal and Manju Mona Soni w/o Vimal Chandra both R/o Mohalla Alamganj, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jaunpur, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The witnesses which were mentioned in the application were (i) Ram Lakhan (ii) Record Keeper, Municipal Board, Jaunpur (iii) Record Keeper, office of the Sub-Registrar, Sadar, Jaunpur (iv) Record Keeper, office of the Superintendent of Police, District- Jaunpur.
The whole facts mentioned in the aforesaid application of the applicant- Ravindra Pratap do not require to mention here. Briefly stated there was a land as plot no. 43/2 in Chak Pyar Ali Mohalla, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jaunpur. Accused persons after hatching the conspiracy made fraudulent sale deed on dates 23.2.2005 and 9.8.2005.
On date 6.8.2005 the Executive Officer Municipal Board, Jaunpur has passed an order of demolition of the boundary wall which was constructed on the encroached land of the applicant. Thereafter, on 7.9.2013 the accused persons Vimal Chandra, Manju Mona Soni, Ganga Ram and Lalji started raising construction of the boundary wall with the help of labourers. When they were prohibited to do so, then at the behest of applicant, Vimal Chandra, 5-6 anti-social elements and accused persons Ganga Ram and Lalji wielding hockey and lathi threatened to assault Ram Lakhan.
On this application, the statement of the applicant Ravindra Pratap Yadav was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of PW-1 Ram Lakhan Yadav and PW-2 Vijay Prakash Yadav were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, passed the impugned order dated 18.04.2016.
This Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has a very narrow scope to re-evaluate and re-postulate the evidence at this stage.
Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is quoted verbatim as follows:-
"397. Calling for records to exercise of powers of revision.?(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.?All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If any application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them."
The revisional jurisdiction does not postulate re-appreciation of evidence, but that should be appreciated in the light of the limitation on the right to go in appeal, Islamuddin v. State, 1975 Cri LJ 841, 842 (Del HC). G. Vasudevan v. K.M. Malabari, 1978 Mad LJ (Cri) 617; Bundoo v. Smt. Mahrul Nisa, 1978 All LJ 1002 (All HC).
The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and perusal of the record has arrived at the conclusion that the present dispute revolves around the sale deed of the alleged land of the complainant for which the complainant may initiate civil proceedings. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order dated 18.04.2016 that since the alleged sale deed has not been cancelled by any court of competent jurisdiction, in this situation, no occasion arises to summon the accused persons in any of the offences. Resultantly, the complaint case was dismissed on merit under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
The impugned order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in case No. 282 of 2016, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jaunpur does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or impropriety. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage.
In view of the above, this criminal revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed
Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.10.2016
Atmesh
Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 302259 of 2016
IN
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 596 of 2016
Revisionist :- Ravindra Pratap
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed with delay of 65 days, hence an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. The reasons explained in the delay condonation application are sufficient.
The delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
Order Date :- 4.10.2016
Atmesh
