Allahabad High Court
Arun Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 May, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106353
Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 601 of 2023
Revisionist :- Arun Pratap Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Udai Chandani
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
Heard on Delay Condonation Application No.01of 2023.
Cause shown by the revisionist appears sufficient. Hence delay is condoned.
Let a regular number be allotted to this criminal revision.
Order on Criminal revision
01. Heard Sri Saket Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Udai Chandani, for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
02. By means of this criminal revision, a judgment and order dated 15.11.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in Criminal Misc. Case No.1014 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. has been challenged whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant-Arun Pratap Singh, now the present revisionist, before this Court.
03. As per allegations in the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the applicant represented United Church of Northern India. Opposite party no.1 and Kishan Chhabra sold certain land belonging to that Church out of plot nos.2496/0.44, 2497/0.47, 2498/0.12, 2499/0.50, 2500/0.17, 2501/0.43, 2502/2.00, 2479/2.583/4, 2480/7.15 for merely Rs.70,000/- in the year 1990. A case regarding deficiency in stamp was instituted with regard to sale deed and that case was disposed of in 1990. Nine years thereafter a civil suit no.117 of 1999 was filed by opposite party no.2 against CNITA Church of North India in 1999 and certain changes were made by order of the civil court passed in 2000 in the land record. The case which began for filling deficiency of stamp was decided by A.D.M. (F.& R.) in 2000. Thereafter small cause case no.559/99-2000 was decided and that order still exists and has not been challenged by anybody.
04. In nutshell it is contended on behalf of revisionist that the opposite party no.2 and Kishan Chhabra had no concern with the UCNI and CNITA Church but they filed false compromise in the cases. I perused the impugned order and material on record. Learned trial court after noting down the facts as alleged in the application found that the matter was essentially civil in nature.
05. Learned trial court referred to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2009)8 SCC 751 wherein it was held that practice of converting a case of civil nature into criminal case is becoming quite prevalent. Learned trial court also noticed the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Anjum vs. State of U.P. 2008(61) ACC 181 wherein the court described the discretionary powers regarding lodging of an F.I.R. and investigation thereon. The court held that any malafide attempt to put the legal machinery in motion should be dissuaded. Learned trial court also took shelter of the observations made in Criminal Appeal No.252 of 2022, Babu Vankatesh and others vs. State of Karnataka and others. and Priyanka Srivastava and others vs. State of U.P. and others and that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should not be allowed in a routine manner without application of mind. Learned trial court rightly noticed the fact that dispute appears to have civil dimensions. Learned trial court also noticed that there is clear attempt to convert a dispute which is essentially civil in nature in a criminal one and dismissed the application.
06. In my view, the view taken by the learned trial court is neither illegal, improper or perverse in the facts and circumstances of the case. No interference warranted in this case.
07. Hence, the criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023
Asha
