Court No. - 68
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2332 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sachin Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to set aside the impugned order dated 26.4.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Complaint Case No. 2843 of 2015, (Sachin Jain Vs. Nasim Ahmad) under Sections 167, 191, 192, 196, 418, 464, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Baghpat and order dated 13.12.2018 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Baghpat in Criminal Revision No. 59 of 2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the Complaint Case No. 2843 of 2015 (Sachin Jain Vs. Nasim Ahmad) without applying his judicial mind. While dismissing the complaint has not considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has made a false evidence to realise the additional money from the petitioner. Against the order dated 26.4.2016 the petitioner has preferred the criminal revision bearing No. 59 of 2016 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baghpat. The revisional Court without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case passed a impugned order. He further submitted that the criminal revision was dismissed which is illegal and contrary to the law established by the Apex Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that as per SARFAESI Act if there is any grievance of the petitioner, he may approach under the said Act before the DRT. He further submitted that there are dispute between the parties regarding the money landing and for the purpose of the adjudication of such type of dispute the special act was enacted and the proper forum is the DRT. Therefore, the present petitioner has no merit and same may be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The learned Magistrate has rightly given the finding that the special act was for proper adjudication of the dispute in question. The Revisional Court has also dismissed the revision after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
I have perused both the orders and I do not find any illegality in these orders.
There is no sufficient ground to interfere in the aforesaid impugned order passed by the courts below.
The present petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Manish Tripathi