Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHREEMATI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shreemati v. State Of U.P. And Others - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 4973 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4922 (20 March 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

According to the applicant, she had purchased some landed property on 26.06.2006 in village Asogawa, District Siddharth Nagar from one Omkar Nath.  A civil suit between Omkar Nath and father of accused Bhagwandas and Baliram namely Bekaru is pending since before in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siddharth Nagar in which the Trial Civil Judge had issued an interim injunction restraining Bekaru and others to interfere into the possession of the plaintiff.

2. Since the Opp. Party Nos. 3, 4 & 5 now dispossessed the applicant from the possession of the said landed property, she had filed an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. (Annexure-4) before the  Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bansi, Siddharth Nagar, which the Magistrate rejected after inviting the objections of the Opp. Party Nos. 3, 4 & 5 vide impugned order dated 24.07.2006.

3. That is what brings the applicant here under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, Advocate for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

5. The applicant has come to this Court straightaway without filing a revision against the aforesaid order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and for this reason alone this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

6. Before I depart it is significant to note that one of the grounds on basis of which, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has rejected the application of the applicant under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is that a civil suit with regard to the same subject  matter was already pending between the parties.

7. According to the applicant herself, an interim order of injunction existed in favour of Omkar Nath, from whom she had purchased the landed property. Therefore, the Magistrate was well within his right to drop the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

8. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly rejected.

Dt. 20.03.07

Ajay


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.