Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46428 of 2019 Applicant :- Haseen Ali Khan And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ehtesham Afsar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Ehtesham Afsar Khan, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 12.09.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Bareilly as well as order dated 23.09.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. Nil of 2019, (Haseen Ali Khan and others vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case No. 2007 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 506 IPC, Police Station-Bithri Chainpur, District- Bareilly pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Bareilly.
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that with respect to the property in question an incident took place on 09.10.2012 at about 04:00 p.m. for which the opposite party no.2 has lodged the F.I.R. against the applicants on 20.10.2012, which was registered as Case Crime No. 782 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325 IPC, Police Station- Bithri Chainpur, District-Bareilly. It has further been contended that earlier regarding dispute with respect to the property in question, the opposite party no.2 and others had approached before this Court by means of writ petition no. 44667 of 2012 wherein the opposite party no.2 and others have obtained stay order vide order dated 03.10.2012. Subsequently, during course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has placed a site plan dated 22.10.2012 in which he has not mentioned the Arazi Number where the alleged incident took place. When the aforesaid facts came into light, the applicants moved an application along with Khatauni and site plan with the prayer to call the concerned Lekhpal to testify the place of occurrence but the said application has been rejected by the court below vide order dated 12.09.2019. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2019, the applicants filed criminal revision before the concerned court below, which was also rejected by the concerned court below vide order dated 23.09.2019. It has further been contended that the orders passed by the concerned courts below are illegal and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. Learned A.G.A. states that the concerned courts below after perusing all evidences have rightly passed the impugned orders dated 12.09.2019 and 23.09.2019. There is no illegality in the said orders.
5. I have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned orders as there is no illegality or infirmity in the said orders. The concerned courts below while passing the impugned orders have considered the entire evidence available on record. Further, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the applicants before this Court may be raised before the court concerned at appropriate stage. Hence, the prayer made in the application is refused.
7. Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 JK Yadav