Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Madhuri Singh v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 7377 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 14339 (24 August 2006)


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).


Court No.10

  Crl. Misc. Application no. 7377 of 2004  


Smt. MadhuriSingh .  . . . . . . .  . . . .  . . . .. .  . .  . . . . . .   . .  .Applicant .


State  of U.P.  and others.. . . .  . . . .  . . .  . .  . . . .   . . . .Opp. Parties.


Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

This is an application for quashing  the order dated 8.7.2004 passed by the Addl. City Magistrate-III, Varanasi in criminal case no.8/04, State Vs. Sangeeta Pandey and others.

The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that on 1.7.2004 Station Officer of  P.S. Sigra district Varanasi submitted a report  before the aforesaid  Magistrate in which it was stated that  plot no. 418 situate  in Madhopur police station Sigra, Varanasi was  earlier owned by Phekan and he had executed an agreement for sale in respect of the above plot in favour of  Smt. Madhuri Singh (applicant )in the year 1984 and two months' time was provided for execution of sale deed. No sale deed was executed during this period and the applicant Madhuri Singh filed  an application for  extension of time in the year 1986. This application was rejected. After rejection of her application, Phekan executed a sale deed  in respect of an area of  1760 Sq. feet in favour of Sangeeta Pandey ( O.P. no. 2) on 29.4.2004 and executed another sale deed  of the remaining area of 680 Sq. feet in favour of Dharmsheela Devi (O.P. no. 3). Both the parties wanted to occupy the aforesaid plot forcibly and there was apprehension of breach of peace. Both the parties had been bound down under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. but since there was  serious dispute in respect of  possession over the above plot, there was  still likelihood of breach of peace. In view of this report the Addl. City  Magistrate-III passed  a preliminary order dated 8.7.2004 directing  both the parties  to appear  in his court on 22.7.2004 and to file documentary evidence in support of their claim in respect of  possession on above plot. Aggrieved with the above order,  Smt. Madhuri Singh filed this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. in this Court.

In this case, learned A.G.A. represents  the State, Sri A.K.Tripathi  is representing  O.P. no. 2 and Sri R.K. Shukla is representing  O.P. no.3.

It appears from perusal of the record that when this application was filed on 10.8.2004 an interim order was  passed directing both the parties to maintain status-quo on the spot.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of O.P. no.2. No counter affidavit has been filed  on behalf of O.P. no.3.

I have heard  learned counsel  for  both the parties and perused the record.

It is to be seen that the learned Magistrate has simply passed a preliminary order requiring both the parties to appear before him  and to put forward  their case in respect of their claim on the dispute plot and to file documentary evidence in support of their claim. No preliminary order for attachment has been passed by him nor  the property has been attached nor  given in Supurdagi  to any one. On the other hand, he has given an opportunity to both the parties to appear before him and put forward  their  cases before him. I do not find  any illegality in the above order passed by the learned Magistrate. This application has in this way got no force and is liable to be dismissed.

The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed and interim order  passed on 10.8.2004 is vacated.

The parties concerned shall appear  before the Magistrate concerned  on 11.9.2006 and put forward  their cases  in respect of the disputed  plot before him. They may also give reference  of  civil suit, if any, pending between them in respect of  the disputed plot and if any interim order has been passed by civil court, a copy of that order  may also be produced before the Magistrate. If any party feels aggrieved with any further order passed by the Magistrate, he may seek his remedy in accordance with law. Since the matter is  of the year 2004 the learned Magistrate shall try to decide this case within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties before him.





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


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 |

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