Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6604 of 2018 Applicant :- Rahamet Elahi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dadhi Bal Yadav,Mohammad Yunus Khan,Zuber Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
By way of the instant application, the applicant has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 18.2.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabit Nagar as well as to quash the impugned order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
Contention is that the statement of the applicant as well as the witnesses were not properly appreciated by the courts below. The courts below recorded specific finding and rejected the complaint filed under section 203 Cr.P.C. In this way, the court has acted mechanically and has not acted in a judicial manner.
Per contra, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, advocate appearing for the accused contended that in this case the applicant admittedly is the co-owner of the land in dispute. It would not be possible that one co-owner is permitted to prosecute the other co-owner of the house/property in question. The matter can be agitated before a competent civil court of law.
I have perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below. In this case, it is admitted to the learned counsel for the applicant as well as complainant that they are the co- owners. In this view of the matter the lower court is to take cognizance of the matter under section 203 Cr.P.C. and the proceedings at this stage cannot be interfered with.
The observation made above shall have no bearing on the merit of the case.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 N.A.