Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ADITYA KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Aditya Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Others - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 3019 of 1995 [2007] RD-AH 1905 (7 February 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

 (Court No. 48)

Criminal Misc. Application  No.  3019 of 1995

***

Aditya Kumar, son of Brij Bhushan Mishra

Resident of Village and Post

Keontra ( Auraiya) District  Etawah. ..........  ...Accused- Applicant.

Vs.

1. State of U.P.

2. Sri Amar  Nath son of Rabhuvir Sahai,

Resident of village and Post Keontra ( Auraiya)

District Etawah. ........... (complainant)

3. Shatrughan son of Raghuvir Sahai

Resident of Village and Post Keontra (Auraiya)

District Etawah. ...... Opp.parties

*************

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. In these proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 14.8.1995 of registration of F.I.R. under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the main and the primary contention of the applicant is that the land to which the dispute relates  lies in District of Kanpur Dehat  and not in District Auraiya, and the Magistrate  had , therefore, no jurisdiction to pass an oder unde Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

2. I have heard Sri  Krishna Ji Khare, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.K. Maurya,  Addl. Government Advocate for the State whereas none present for the Opp.Party Nos. 2 & 3 in revised list.

3. The question whether land in dispute situates at Auraiya or Kanpur Dehat  has to be decided on the basis of evidence. The Lekhpal alongwith the revenue record including  the revenue map needs tobe examined and the Thana police  Kotwali Auriya must also give a report  as to whether the land lies within their jurisdiction. A reference has been made to the police Reports in the petition but they are not on record of the file in this Court. It is not, therefore, known whether the police have given any report about jurisdiction . It has not, even been mentioned  in the petition  in which police station of Kanpur Dehat, the disputed land lies.

4. It will be for the Magistrate to determine on basis of requisite evidence whether he has jurisdiction or not? The case must, therefore, go back to the Magistrate.

5. Petition disposed of accordingly.

Dt:  7.2. 2007

  n.u.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.