Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11041 of 2019 Applicant :- Jamal Ahmad Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Mohammadabad, Ghazipur to reconsider the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. bearing complaint case no. 443 of 2015 ( Jamal Khan Vs. Amanullah Khan) under section 203 Cr.P.C.of the applicant and pass fresh order by directing the police of concerned police station to register the case against the opposite party no.2 in accordance with law.
Challenge is to the impugned orders 20.2.2017 and 2.8.2018 passed by the courts below whereby the complaint moved by the applicant has been dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.
The contention is that the entirety of the case was not considered and the enquiry which was required to be made at the end of the courts below, was not gone into and in a perfunctory manner order has been passed without applying judicial mind.
Various points have not been considered by the both the courts below and the order passed by both the courts below suffer from illegality.
The learned A.G.A. submitted that bare perusal of the orders 20.2.2017 and 2.8.2018 reflects that every aspects of the case was threadbare interpreted and every aspect of the case has been scrutinized in its right perspective and nothing was left out by the court below.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned orders, which reflect that in these cases dispute involved relates to selling out the alleged property other than possessed by O.P. No.2. He possessed only 1/4th of the share in the property whereas property involved in both the alleged sale deeds dated 9.2.1971 and 3.5.1971 belonged to the present applicant and another (minor brother) but the same was illegally sold out, however, no specific explanation has been given as to why after a lapse of 45 years only this fact came to knowledge of the applicant. The sale took place in the year 1971 whereas challenge was made by filing a complaint in the year 2015 and the applicant claims that he came to know about the incident of sale deed and the transaction 4-5 month prior to the filing of the complaint. During the course of argument learned counsel for the applicant accepted this fact that it is only the complaint moved and no other proceedings other than the present one at any forum has been filed. This court is not hesitant to acceed to fact that the dispute involved is exclusively of civil nature and appropriate remedy can be availed by recourse to a civil proceedings before the appropriate forum. The orders passed by both the courts below are justified in law. It cannot be interfered. The application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
The applicant is free to seek his remedy at his wisdom.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 N.A.