Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2563 of 2021 Revisionist :- Bhavar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umang Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the private opposite parties and perused the record.
The present revision has been filed to set aside the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura whereby the Criminal Case No.606/XII/2021 (Bhavar Singh vs. Govinda Sharma and Ors.) filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. at Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura, along with the further prayer to direct the court below to pass fresh order in accordance with law on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the property in question is owned by Smt. Kamla Pathak W/o Shri Vidya Sagar Pathak R/o Hardlands Woods, Haizel 8D, Action Area 2C, Near Akanksha Mor, Rajrahat, New Town, Action Area 2, Kolkata, North-24 Pargana, West Bengal, and the revisionist is also a tenant in the property in question along with the others. On 07.08.2021, in the night, the premises of Smt. Kamla Pathak was vanished/robbed by the private opposite parties and when the revisionist raised objection, then life threat was given to him. Thereafter, revisionist made a complaint to the Police Station Vrindavan, but no action was taken. He further submitted that on 08.02.2021, through a registered post, a complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Mathura. Thereafter, on 11.02.2021, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved before C.J.M., Mathura by the revisionist with the request for lodging the F.I.R. Thereafter, the aforesaid complaint was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.606/XII/2021 (Bhavar Singh vs. Govinda Sharma and Ors.), P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura, C.J.M., Mathura and report was sought from the police station concerned.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that aforesaid application of the revisionist was rejected by the court below on 19.07.2021 with the observation that revisionist has no locus. He further submitted that court below has no jurisdiction to see the locus and the court below was under obligation to pass order for registering the F.I.R., if the cognizable offence is made out. Therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the private opposite parties have vehemently opposed the prayer of the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the private opposite parties has submitted that the property in question is of Vimlendra Mohan Pratap Mishra, and Smt. Kamla Pathak has no concern with the property in question. He further submitted that husband of Kamla Pathak filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, IV, Mathura which was registered as Regular Suit No.27 of 1994 in which Vidyasagar Pathak (husband of Smt. Kamla Pathak) was the plaintiff No.2, and the aforesaid suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division-IV, Mathura on 31.03.1999 (judgment is annexed as annexure No. C.A.5 to the counter affidavit dated 09.12.2021 and the description of the aforesaid judgment is mentioned in para 9 of the counter affidavit). He further submitted that in the year of 2014, Smt. Kamla Pathak and her associates tried to encroach the property in question, as a result, F.I.R. as Case Crime No.1017 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura was lodged on 03.12.2014, and thereafter, in the year of 2019 again they tried to encroach the property, as a result, another F.I.R. No.780 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura was lodged on 27.08.2019. He further submitted that one Regular Suit No.62 of 2020 (Bhavar Singh and Others vs. Kailash Nath Mishra and Others) was filed by the revisionist in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura for permanent injunction against opposite party No.9 and others, and in para 17 of the said suit, stereo type allegations have been made for giving a threat to the revisionist to vacate the premises, and thereafter, only with the intention to make pressure for compromising in the aforesaid criminal case, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved and the court below has rightly rejected the application of the revisionist with the observation that earlier, two F.I.R.s were lodged against Smt. Kamla Pathak and others.
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the private opposite parties and going through the records, it is evident that Civil Judge, Junior Division, IV, Mathura has rejected the claim of husband of Smt. Kamla Pathak in Suit No.27 of 1994 and this fact is not denied in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the revisionist in relation to the ownership of Vimlendra Mohan Pratap Mishra and others, and revisionist has filed Suit No.62 of 2020 which is pending, therefore, it is clear that the Application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved with the intention to make pressure, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below and the revision has no merit.
Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 S. Shivhare/-