Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Batra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 September, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:162282
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6236 of 2025
Om Prakash Batra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Vishal Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to set aside/modify/stay the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 14, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision no. 456 of 2024 (CNR no. UPSP010104192024) (Om Prakash Banna and others vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 30.08.2024 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nakur, Saharanpur in Case No. 4224 of 2023 (Computerized Case no. T202309600304224) (State of U.P. vs. Ankit Jain) under Section 133 of Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that brief facts of the present case are that, petitioner is the tenant of respondent no. 4 and is paying rent to respondent no. 4 and is in possession over the ground floor of the property/house in question. Respondent no. 3 moved an application dated 17.04.2023 before respondent no. 2/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nakur, Saharanpur seeking demolition of the aforesaid house belonging to respondent no. 4 whereupon proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. has been initiated and report was sought from concerned police station by respondent no. 2. After issuance of show cause notice and hearing both the parties, vide order dated 30.08.2024, respondent no. 2 directed for demolition of the house/property in question within 15 days. Being aggrieved with order dated 30.08.2024, petitioner filed revision before learned District Judge, Saharanpur but the same has also been dismissed vide order impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 14, Saharanpur.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner challenged the impugned orders on the ground that residence of respondent no. 3/complainant and respondent no. 4 is about 10 kilometers away. The reason for initiation of present proceedings is indigestive, in as much as, it appears that respondent no. 3 is having hands in glove with respondent no. 4 so that short cut method may be adopted to evict the petitioner, who is the tenant in the house of respondent no. 4. The proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is a summary proceeding, however, more than 2 years had elapsed and the property is intact, therefore present proceeding is only for the sake of harassment to the petitioner. During proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. imminent danger is to be seen, however, during efflux of time, present proceedings become infructuous, therefore the orders impugned are bad in the eye of law.
5. Per contra, Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application and submitted that present proceedings initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is highly justified and requires no interference by this Court. For substantiating his arguments, he relied upon judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Budhwa and four others vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 23.11.2005 reported in 2006 (1) ALL LJ 503 wherein it has been held that the nature of relief which is being granted by Executive Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is to remove the nuisance immediately and if the proceeding of the case is dropped merely because a civil suit is pending, the object of sections 133, 137 and 138 Cr.P.C. would fail.
6. Learned AGA also seconded the arguments raised by learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and submitted that impugned orders are highly justified, since looking into the facts of the case that the property in question is in dilapidated condition, it was imminent for the authorities concerned to pass impugned orders.
7. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that while passing impugned order dated 30.08.2024, concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, rightly exercised power of Section 133 Cr.P.C. by observing that after taking into consideration the dilapidated condition of the house/property in question as is revealed from the report furnished by Executive Officer and Revenue Inspector concerned and to prevent any mishappening which might be caused due to collapsing of the house/property in question, it would be highly justified to order for demolition. There is no illegality in the order impugned dated 30.08.2024 which has been rightly upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.06.2025. None of the grounds raised through instant petition are convincing enough for seeking quashing of the orders impugned.
8. The instant petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 12, 2025
Shaswat
