Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 November, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42624 of 2018 Applicant :- Kanhaiya Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jhansi in Criminal Revision No. 198 of 2017 (Kanhaiya Lal Sharma Vs. Ravind Kumar Sharma) arising out of judgment and order dated 11.09.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in complaint case no. 1012 of 2016 (Kanhaiyya Lal Vs. Ravindra Kumar) under sections 420, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Nawabad,, District Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the criminal complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. on the basis that the opposite party no.2 has filed a forged and fabricated application, affidavit and family settlement before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi in original suit no. 287 of 2010 and all the proceedings have taken place before the civil Court, hence the complaint case is barred by section 195 Cr.P.C. and accordingly the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2017. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed Criminal Revision No. 198 of 2017, under section 397 Cr.P.C. After inviting objection from opposite party no. 2, the revisional court vide order dated 16.07.2018 dismissed the revision without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the grounds taken in the said revision. The judgment and orders passed by the courts below are totally illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and is against the material available on record. The same are also based on erroneous and perverse findings. While passing the impugned orders the courts below have totally ignored the evidence produced by the applicant and further the courts below did not consider the incident dated 4.1.2016 on which date opposite party no.2 has committed offence as stated in the complaint case.
Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondents vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant and submitted that the courts below have considered each and every aspect of the matter while passing the impugned orders and hence the courts below have rightly held that the complaint filed by the applicant is barred by section 195 Cr.P.C. As per section 195 Cr.P.C. when any offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of documents produced or given in evidence in a proceedings before the court, no court can take cognizance except on the complaint in writing by such officer of the court as the court may authorize in writing in this behalf or of some other court to which that court is subordinate, therefore, the present application has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard and perused the records.
With respect to above facts, no complaint can be tenable. In second para of the complaint, complainant has stated that accused persons entered into his house and has beaten him and fled away after intending threat for the life of the complainant and hold the possession over the disputed house. It is rightly held by the court below that if a five persons beaten any person with deadly weapons, then it is natural that such person should have received some injuries but in this case, there is no medical evidence or injury report of complainant, which could suggests that complainant has received any injuries caused by the accused. Therefore, from all above, it appears that there is dispute as to the property between the parties and complainant has filed this complaint in order to mold the nature of case. Therefore, this is nothing but malicious prosecution which is against the facts and law both.
Accordingly, the application being bereft of merit is
dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 Prajapati
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 November, 2018
Judges
  • Chandra Dhari Singh
Advocates
  • Piyush Kumar Shukla