High Court

applicants have challenged 21.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Sitapur in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2021 as well as order dated

01.08.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 83 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Sitapur, District Sitapur and order dated 17.10.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 570 of 2017, Police Station Imaliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that father of the applicant by means of sale deed dated 04.11.2003 and 31.05.2003 had sold a portion of plot no. 207 Ka/2 on which a brick kiln was existing. It is the case of opposite party no. 2 that opposite party no. 2 has established a brick kiln and continued to run the said brick kiln. The dispute has arisen sometimes in the year 2015 when the applicant has subsequently sold a portion of plot to Madan Mohan Lal Mehrotra Trust through a registered sale deed on 17.10.2015.

5. It is the allegation of opposite party no. 2 that the applicant has fraudulently and deliberately sold a portion of plot which was purchased by the applicant through the earlier sale deeds. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 has filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 17.10.2015 by filing a civil suit in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur, which has been registered as Suit No. 574 of 2015. In the said suit, the applicant has sought cancellation of sale deed dated

17.10.2015 and also sought an injunction from the applicant not to interfere with peaceful possession of the property.

6. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that an FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 17.12.2015 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Imiliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur stating that the land on which the brick kiln is situated has already been sold by the father of the applicant in favour of opposite party no. 2 and the applicant has fraudulently prepared certain documents and sold the said land in favour of Trust on

17.10.2015. The police duly investigated the said matter and filed its closure report/final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur against which a protest petition was filed by opposite party no. 2. In the first protest petition, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur by means of order dated 24.01.2017 had directed the police to re-investigate the matter. On re- investigation the police again submitted a closure/final report. Against which another protest petition was filed, which has resulted in the impugned order dated 17.10.2017 by which the said court has treated the protest petition to be a complaint case and proceeded under Sections under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. to record the statements of complainant and witnesses.

7. Subsequently after taking evidence on record, by means of order dated 01.08.2018 he has summoned the applicants. The applicants had assailed the order dated 01.08.2018 in a criminal revision before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sitapur, which has been rejected by means of order dated

21.03.2025 and accordingly, by means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., all the aforesaid orders have been assailed.

8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that at the time when the two sale deeds dated 04.11.2003 and 31.05.2003 were executed the land had not been partitioned by meets and bounds and accordingly the respective parties could have sold only the share of the interest in the said land.

9. It is the case of the applicants that subsequently by means of sale deed dated 17.10.2015, he has sold his interest in the said land and even in case the sale deed indicated the brick kiln to be the part of property sold would not be of any consequence, inasmuch as, by that time the property had not been partitioned.

10. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has informed this Court that in 2015, opposite party no. 2 has instituted a suit for partition, which was allowed on 31.07.2017 and now the property has been partitioned.

11. Subsequent this Court also takes note of the fact that opposite party no. 2 had filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 17.10.2015, which is pending consideration in the court of learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sitapur.

12. From the aforesaid facts, it is abundantly clear that the dispute is of civil nature pertaining only to the question as to whether the plot on which the brick kiln is situated falls within the partition property of the applicants or opposite party no. 2 and considering that the suit is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sitapur for the same facts, these issues would necessarily be considered and decided by the competent court. Accordingly, prima facie for the same issue criminal proceedings have also been initiated at the behest of opposite party no. 2.

13. In light of the above, the matter requires consideration.

14. Let counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within three weeks.

15. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

16. List this case on 02.07.2025.

17. As an interim measure, till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 21.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Sitapur in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2021 as well as order dated 01.08.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 83 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Sitapur, District Sitapur and order dated 17.10.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 570 of 2017, Police Station Imaliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur shall remain stayed. . Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Virendra (Alok Mathur, J.)

applicants have challenged 21.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Sitapur in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2021 as well as order dated

01.08.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 83 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Sitapur, District Sitapur and order dated 17.10.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 570 of 2017, Police Station Imaliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that father of the applicant by means of sale deed dated 04.11.2003 and 31.05.2003 had sold a portion of plot no. 207 Ka/2 on which a brick kiln was existing. It is the case of opposite party no. 2 that opposite party no. 2 has established a brick kiln and continued to run the said brick kiln. The dispute has arisen sometimes in the year 2015 when the applicant has subsequently sold a portion of plot to Madan Mohan Lal Mehrotra Trust through a registered sale deed on 17.10.2015.

5. It is the allegation of opposite party no. 2 that the applicant has fraudulently and deliberately sold a portion of plot which was purchased by the applicant through the earlier sale deeds. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 has filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 17.10.2015 by filing a civil suit in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur, which has been registered as Suit No. 574 of 2015. In the said suit, the applicant has sought cancellation of sale deed dated

17.10.2015 and also sought an injunction from the applicant not to interfere with peaceful possession of the property.

6. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that an FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 17.12.2015 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Imiliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur stating that the land on which the brick kiln is situated has already been sold by the father of the applicant in favour of opposite party no. 2 and the applicant has fraudulently prepared certain documents and sold the said land in favour of Trust on

17.10.2015. The police duly investigated the said matter and filed its closure report/final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur against which a protest petition was filed by opposite party no. 2. In the first protest petition, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur by means of order dated 24.01.2017 had directed the police to re-investigate the matter. On re- investigation the police again submitted a closure/final report. Against which another protest petition was filed, which has resulted in the impugned order dated 17.10.2017 by which the said court has treated the protest petition to be a complaint case and proceeded under Sections under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. to record the statements of complainant and witnesses.

7. Subsequently after taking evidence on record, by means of order dated 01.08.2018 he has summoned the applicants. The applicants had assailed the order dated 01.08.2018 in a criminal revision before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sitapur, which has been rejected by means of order dated

21.03.2025 and accordingly, by means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., all the aforesaid orders have been assailed.

8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that at the time when the two sale deeds dated 04.11.2003 and 31.05.2003 were executed the land had not been partitioned by meets and bounds and accordingly the respective parties could have sold only the share of the interest in the said land.

9. It is the case of the applicants that subsequently by means of sale deed dated 17.10.2015, he has sold his interest in the said land and even in case the sale deed indicated the brick kiln to be the part of property sold would not be of any consequence, inasmuch as, by that time the property had not been partitioned.

10. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has informed this Court that in 2015, opposite party no. 2 has instituted a suit for partition, which was allowed on 31.07.2017 and now the property has been partitioned.

11. Subsequent this Court also takes note of the fact that opposite party no. 2 had filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 17.10.2015, which is pending consideration in the court of learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sitapur.

12. From the aforesaid facts, it is abundantly clear that the dispute is of civil nature pertaining only to the question as to whether the plot on which the brick kiln is situated falls within the partition property of the applicants or opposite party no. 2 and considering that the suit is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sitapur for the same facts, these issues would necessarily be considered and decided by the competent court. Accordingly, prima facie for the same issue criminal proceedings have also been initiated at the behest of opposite party no. 2.

13. In light of the above, the matter requires consideration.

14. Let counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within three weeks.

15. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

16. List this case on 02.07.2025.

17. As an interim measure, till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 21.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Sitapur in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2021 as well as order dated 01.08.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 83 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Sitapur, District Sitapur and order dated 17.10.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 570 of 2017, Police Station Imaliya Sultanpur, District Sitapur shall remain stayed. . Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Virendra (Alok Mathur, J.)