Court No. - 64
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4802 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bachha Lal Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam,Mohd. Shamim Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the impugned judgement and order dated 03.01.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act) Court No.4, Varanasi arising out of judgement and order dated 01.08.2018 passed by C.J.M., Varanasi, in Miscellaneous Case No.272 of 2018, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station- Cantt, District Varanasi.
Grievance is that in this case the application moved U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C was, after consideration, dismissed. On Criminal Revision No.203 of 2018 being preferred before the Lower Revisional Court, the revision was also dismissed vide order of the lower court dated 3.1.2019.
Urge is that in this case the facts described in the application were not properly appreciated but a casual approach was given while appreciating the substance of the contents brought before both the courts by way of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Heard the learned A.G.A.
Obviously, it is made out that some transaction took place between the son of the petitioner and one another person, who is respondent no.2 in this case and the claim is that both the respondent nos.2 and 3 are pressurizing the petitioner to sell his house. In view of the transaction that took place between respondent no.2 and the son of the petitioner, claim of the petitioner is particular that petitioner has got no concern with his son, as nine years ago his son settled his married life, however, he separated from his wife later on.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case both the courts below have made out proper scrutiny of fact and concluded by observing that presentation of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is nothing but a device to protect the son of the petitioner from the liability imposed and arising out of the transaction in question. This finding of fact on the face is consistent, just and meeting the requirement of the reasoning of a prudent man. Both the orders passed by the courts below are consistent, need no interference.
Accordingly, this petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
Cost easy.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Raj