Nooruddin And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4242 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 80
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8560 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Nooruddin And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukhtar Alam,Maohammd Nadeem,Vivek Dhaka
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amol Ranjan
 

 
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

Supplementary affidavit is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material available on record.

The present application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by applicants for quashing the order dated 07.10.2015 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Kannauj, in Case No. 8 of 2015, under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. as well as judgment and order dated 07.01.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Kannauj in Criminal Revision No. 95 of 2015.

Learned counsel for applicants submits that Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Kannauj passed the impugned order in casual manner. He has not applied its mind before passing the impugned order. There was no need to pass the impugned order. He further submits that order impugned is ex parte and is liable to be quashed. He showed some papers and documents in favour of his contention. He further states that there has been a compromise between the parties.

Brief facts for disposal of the present application is that one Muneeruddin moved an application under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. before the SDM, Sadar, Kannauj with request to issue notice under Sections 145 (1) and 146 Cr.P.C. and attached the property in question. Learned Magistrate after seeking the report of Police Station concerned, passed the impugned order dated 7.10.2015 directing the Opposite Party to appear before the Court on 24.10.2015 at about 11:00 am in person or through his Advocate to answer the claim. Magistrate further directed to SHO, Kannauj to attache the property in view of maintaining peace.

On the other hand, learned AGA refuted the submissions made by learned Counsel for applicant.

Evidently, impugned order is show cause notice whereby the Opposite Party, applicant herein, was required to appear before the Magistrate to answer the claim. It is not a final order and final order has to be passed by the learned Magistrate. It is settled position that revision is not maintainable against the show cause notice.

Learned counsel for applicant could not show any irregularity or illegality legal or otherwise in the impugned order. Impugned order does not reflect any abuse of process of Court. I am of the view that it is not a case of grave injustice justifying interference in the matter at this stage.

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, it is directed that if parties enter into compromise and file compromise before the Court concerned, it shall dispose of the same within a period of three months in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made hereinbefore.

Order Date :- 22.3.2021

Akram