Jitendra Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Anr
2018 Latest Caselaw 1704 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24685 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Jitendra Mishra
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Tiwari,Ganesh Datt Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashank Kumar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 21.04.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj, in Complaint Case No.491 of 2017 (Bal Gangadhar Pandey vs. Rambali others) and order dated 17.04.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj by which the bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant and entire proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case under sections 419, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Kothibhar, District Maharajganj, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magisrate, Maharajganj.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that one Rambali was tenure holder of Plot No.165 area 0.636 hectares, who executed unregistered agreement dated 05.06.2008 in favour of opposite party no. 2 Bal Gangadhar Pandey for establishment of brick-kiln for a period of 20 years on yearly rent of Rs.50,000/-. Subsequently the same Rambali again executed a registered agreement dated 26.10.2016 in favour of the applicant as well as Shah Alam for establishment of brick-kiln for a period of six years on yearly rent of Rs.30,000/-. The opposite party no. 2 on the basis of the unregistered agreement dated 5.6.2008 started creating hindrance over the said brick-kiln despite the fact that the said agreement had no legal sanctity in the teeth of the provision under section 17 of the Registration Act and that was the reason said transaction had got frustrated. In the background of these facts, the opposite party no.2 has lodged the false FIR against the applicant which needs to be quashed it being a matter of civil nature. He has relied upon the law laid-down in the case of Inter Mohan Goswani vs. State of Uttranchal, (2008) SCC (Cr.)259.

Matter requires consideration.

Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1.

Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week.

Both the opposite parties shall file counter affidavits by the next date fixed.

List this matter on 7.9.2018 before appropriate bench.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case.

Order Date :- 25.7.2018

AU