Bhola Prajapati vs State Of Up And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4441 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 638 of 2021
 

 
Revisionist :- Bhola Prajapati
 
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinay Kumar Pal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the Special Judge(Dacoity Affected Area Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Criminal Misc. Case No.176/XII/2020 (Bhola Prajapati vs. Karan Singh and others) under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Atarra, District Banda whereby the court below has rejected the complaint case of the revisionist.

As per application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist, one Smt. Mani @ Sirmaniya had sold some land of her gata no. 2406 to many villagers including the revisionist, out of the said land, five biswas were purchased by the revisionist for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and receipt thereof was executed on a stamp paper, which was signed by Sirmaniya and signatures as witnesses were made by her son Karan Singh, opposite party no. 2 and other villagers namely, Beta Bhunjwa and Ram Lakhan. The revisionist had also been handed over possession of the said land and had been told that the executant of the said document, would have no objection, if any construction is raised thereon. Pursuant to the death of Sirmaniya, her sons and other members of the family, opposite party nos. 2 to 5 are stated to have raised objections over the construction made by the revisionist on the said land and they were demanding Rs.one lac in order not to get the said land vacated and when the revisionist had gone to lodge a complaint in regard to this fact, the Inspector, Chawki, Mahunta had torn the said paper/receipt of Rs.30,000/- which was executed by Sirmaniya and he had been abused also.

Submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the court below has dismissed the application on the basis of the fact of the case being found of civil nature, which is against the provision of law, according to learned counsel for the revisionist, cognizable offence is made out.

When enquired as to whether the revisionist has any title over the piece of land, of which he is claiming to be owner, he could not give any satisfactory reply because for transfer of any movable property, registered document was required. Since there was no registered document, hence he is not entitled to claim right over the land on the basis of any receipt executed by Sirmaniya and therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist.

In view of the aforesaid, this revision deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 23.3.2021

AU