Mohd. Sharif And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 8544 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7561 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Mohd. Sharif And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Afzal Hasan,Rajendra Prasad Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

Order on Substitution Application (C.M.Application No. 146366 of 2021)

Application is allowed.

Let necessary amendment be carried out by learned counsel for the petitioners during course of the day.

Order on Petition

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and order dated 17-10-2018, whereby the learned Revisional Court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich has allowed the revision filed by respondent no. 2 and set aside the order dated 18-05-02015 whereby the application under section 133 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent no. 2 for the alleged encroachment by the petitioners herein over the P.W.D Road/Public Path Way was rejected.

3. The Revisional Court after setting aside the order has directed that respondent no. 2 should be given opportunity to lead evidence under section 138 (1) Cr.P.C. and thereafter, should decide the dispute.

4. Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now said road has been declared as National Highway, which is under National Highway Authority of India. He has further submitted that Nagar Palika, Nanpara, district-Bahraich has already submitted a report that there is no encroachment put up by the petitioners over the public path way/P.W.D. road/National Highway.

5. Be that as it may, since the learned Revisional Court has only remanded back the matter to decide afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties for leading evidence in respect of the alleged encroachment, this court finds that there is no prejudice caused to the petitioners.

6. In view thereof, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the Sub. Divisional Magistrate concerned to decide the application under section 133 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent no. 2 in accordance with law after taking into consideration the reports from the relevant departments regarding alleged encroachment.

7. The Sub. Divisional Magistrate concerned should decide application under section 133 Cr.P.C. expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

Order Date :- 29.7.2022

AKS