[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Shobh Nath Nishad vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 15 December, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:225652
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10325 of 2025
Shobh Nath Nishad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ganesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned for the State and perused the record.
2. This petition under Article 227 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Criminal Msic. Case No. 1510 of 2023 whereby the trial court has rejected the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner as well as order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge Exclusive Court (POCSO Act)/ Child Court Basti also dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of the trial court.
3. A perusal of the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court reveals that both the courts have recorded concurrent findings to the effect that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 08.07.2023 at about 8:30 a.m.
4. According to the allegations, the petitioner had gone towards the field adjacent to his house to attend to nature's call, where he allegedly saw Udairaj and Ashok Kumar, sons of Ramjas, and Balram and Mahipal, sons of Udairaj, along with other persons, acting in concert and with common intention, installing cement pillars on the petitioner's share of land with the help of spades and crowbars. It is further alleged that when the petitioner objected to the said act on the ground that the matter was pending before the court and a stay order was in operation, and questioned the installation of the pillars, his son arrived at the spot.
5. The allegation further proceeds to state that thereafter all the accused persons chased the petitioner and his son while abusing them and carrying spades, crowbars, and iron rods, with the intention to kill them. It is alleged that the petitioner's son ran into the house to save his life, but the accused persons broke open the door of the house and assaulted the petitioner and his son with lathis, sticks, spades, crowbars, and iron rods.
6. However, it is an admitted position that neither any medical examination of the petitioner or his son was conducted nor has any medical report been produced before the Trial Court in support of the alleged assault. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and considering the nature of the dispute and the absence of medical evidence, both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court have concurrently held that the matter essentially gives rise to a civil dispute and does not warrant interference in exercise of criminal jurisdiction.
4. Moreover, a Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 2010 SCC OnLine All 2438, while considering the judgment in Aleque Padamsee & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., has observed that the proper remedy, in a case where an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is rejected, is to file a complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate.
4. In view of the above, both the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court appear to be correct, and no interference is warranted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
5. The present petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
December 15, 2025
Akbar
