Mohd. Faheem and another v. Mobin and others, under Section

2. The present application under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 26.05.2025 passed by Up Zila Adhikari, Utraula, district Balrampur and further stay the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.10821 of 2024 (Mohd. Faheem and another Vs Mobin and others, under Section 145 CrPC, police station Shriduttganj, district Balrampur, pending in the Court of Up Zila Adhikari, Utraula, district Balrampur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that one Mohd. Fayyaz Khan was the sole and original tenure holder of land in question i.e. Gata Nos.312 and 316 (new Gata No.105). The father of the applicants namely Mohd. Abbas Khan purchased some portion of land of Gata No.105 (Old Gata No.312) through registered sale deed dated 29.11.1973 and constructed a house over the same and started residing since the year 1973. He further submitted that when the private respondents 2 and 3 started interfering in peaceful living of the applicants, they preferred two suits for permanent injunction, which were dismissed thereafter they preferred an appeal before the District Judge, which too was also dismissed. Against the order passed in appeal, he preferred second appeal no.355 of 2009 (Mohd. Abbas Vs. Mohd. Nayeem) before this Court in which stay order was granted by this Court vide order dated 21.05.2013 thereafter extended on 17.02.2014 till further orders. He further submitted that in the year 2025 when the private respondents 2 and 3 started encroaching the property in question with the association of local police as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, a complaint was made in this regard but no action was taken and the applicants preferred Contempt Application (Civil) No.1221 of 2025 in which notices were issued to the private respondents on 25.04.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that immediately after notices were issued to the private respondents in aforesaid contempt application, the private respondents made a complaint and on the said complainant a report dated 27.04.2025 was prepared by Sub-Inspector Jitendra Kumar, of police station Shriduttganj, district Balrampur, which was submitted before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur in which he stated that stay order was passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.355 of 2009 on 17.02.2014 but, few days back the applicants started residing in the accommodation in question along with family members. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that specific date was not mentioned deliberately because the said report was prepared in fabricated manner. The relevant part of the report dated 27.04.2025 prepared by Jitendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police station Shriduttganj, district Balrampur is reproduced as under : "ससेववा मम, शश्रीमवान उपजजिलवाजधिकवारश्री महहोदय, उतररौलवा जिनपद बलरवामपपुर। महहोदय, सवादर अवगत करवानवा हहै कक पवाप्त पवाररनवा पत्र आवसेदक महोहम्मद फहश्रीम पपुत्र महोहम्मद नईम ककी जिवाजांच मपुझ उपकनरश्रीक्षक दवारवा मरौकसे पर जिवाकर ककयवा गयवा तहो जवात हहआ कक आवसेदक महोहम्मद फहश्रीम कनववासश्री गवाम मपुजिहनवा रवानवा शश्रीद्तगजांजि जिनपद बलरवामपपुर कसे रहनसे ववालसे हह तरवा कवपक्षश्री महोबश्रीन पपुत्र महो० अब्बवास कनववासश्री गवाम शसेखडश्रीह गहैर हवालपतवा मपुजिहनवा रवानवा शश्रीद्तगजांजि जिनपद बलरवामपपुर कसे रहनसे ववालसे हह। दरौड़नसे जिवाजांच जवात हहआ कक गवाटवा सजांख्यवा 105 ससरत गवाम मपुजिहनवा मम दहोननों पक्षनों कसे मध्य कब्जिसेदवारश्री कहो लसेकर कवववाद रवा। जजिसकवा मवाननश्रीय न्यवायवालय शश्रीमवान जजिलवा जिजि महहोदय बलरवामपपुर कसे यहवा ववाद सजांख्यवा 3/2009 महोहम्मद अब्बवास बनवाम महोहम्मद नईम दवायर रवा जजिसमम कदनवाजांक 28.05.2009 कहो उक्त मपुकदमवा खवाररजि हहो जिवानसे पर कवपक्षश्री महोहम्मद अब्बवास दवारवा मवाननश्रीय उच्च न्यवायवालय लखनऊ खजांडपश्रीठ लखनऊ मम ववाद सजांख्यवा 355/2009 महोहम्मद अब्बवास बनवाम महोहम्मद नईम दवायर ककयवा रवा। जजिसमम कदनवाजांक 17.02.2014 कहो यरवाससरकत बनवाए रखनसे कवा आदसेश पवाररत हहोनसे कसे बवावजिजूद कवपक्षश्री दवारवा आजि ससे कपु छ कदन पहलसे उक्त जिमश्रीन मम अपनसे पररववार कहो लवाकर रख कदयवा गयवा हहै। पररववार कहो उक्त जिमश्रीन ससे हटवानसे हसेतपु कई बवार कहवा गयवा तरवा यह भश्री बतवायवा गयवा कक जिब तक मवाननश्रीय उच्च न्यवायवालय लखनऊ खजांडपश्रीठ लखनऊ कवा अकगम आदसेश न आ जिवाए तब तक उक्त जिमश्रीन कहो खवालश्री रखम तरवा यरवाससरकत बनवाए रखसे परजांतपु कवपक्षश्री मवाननसे कहो तहैयवार नहहीं। तरवा आमवादवा फहै जिदवारश्री पर उतवारू हहो जिवा रहवा हहै। दहोननों पक्षनों कसे कवरुद अजांतगरत धिवारवा 170/126/135 BNSS ककी कवायरववाहश्री कदनवाजांक 27.04.2025 कहो ककयवा जिवा चपुकवा हहै। उक्त पकरण कसे सजांबजांधि मम मवाननश्रीय उपजजिलवाजधिकवारश्री महहोदय उतररौलवा बलरवामपपुर कसे यहवा अन्तगरत धिवारवा 145 सश्रीआरपश्रीसश्री ककी कवायरववाहश्री भश्री पजूवर मम ककयवा जिवा चपुकवा हहै। कफर भश्री कवपक्षश्री मवाननसे कहो तहैयवार नहहीं हहै। और नवा हश्री उक्त कवववाकदत जिमश्रीन ससे कब्जिवा छहोड़नसे कहो तहैयवार हह। उक्त कवववाकदत ज़मश्रीन खवालश्री नहहीं हहोतवा हहै तहो कभश्री भश्री अकपय घटनवा घट सकतश्री हहै। अततः शश्रीमवान जिश्री ससे कनवसेदन हहै कक उक्त कवववाकदत जिमश्रीन कहो कवपक्षश्री अब्दपुल महोकबन पपुत्र महो० अब्बवास ससे खवालश्री करवानसे कवा आदसेश पवाररत करनसे ककी कक पवा करम। ररपहोटर सवादर ससेववा मम पसेकषित हहै। (जिश्रीतसेन्द्र कपु मवार) उ०कन० रवानवा शश्रीद्तगजांजि जिनपद बलरवामपपुर" 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on the aforesaid fabricated report, proceedings under Section 145 CrPC were initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned. He further submitted that after receiving the notices issued to the applicants, they filed their objections even then order under Section 146 (1) CrPC has been passed without considering the status of the physical possession of the applicants therefore kind indulgence of this Court is required.

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer made by the applicants but he does not dispute the fact that in the report of Jitendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police station Shriduttganj, district Balrampur, which was submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, he himself admitted the possession of the applicants over the property in question but he did not mention the date of possession in the said report.

7. Considering the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the impugned order as well as other material available on record including the report submitted by Jitendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police station Shriduttganj, district Balrampur it is evident that applicants were in possession over the property in dispute at the time of passing of the order impugned therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

8. Issue notice to the opposite party nos.2 and 3.

9. List this case in the month of September, 2025.

10. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Criminal Case No.10821 of 2024 (Mohd. Faheem and another Vs Mobin and others, under Section 145 CrPC, police station Shriduttganj, district Balrampur, shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 11.6.2025. Rks.

2. The present application under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 26.05.2025 passed by Up Zila Adhikari, Utraula, district Balrampur and further stay the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.10821 of 2024 (Mohd. Faheem and another Vs Mobin and others, under Section 145 CrPC, police station Shriduttganj, district Balrampur, pending in the Court of Up Zila Adhikari, Utraula, district Balrampur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that one Mohd. Fayyaz Khan was the sole and original tenure holder of land in question i.e. Gata Nos.312 and 316 (new Gata No.105). The father of the applicants namely Mohd. Abbas Khan purchased some portion of land of Gata No.105 (Old Gata No.312) through registered sale deed dated 29.11.1973 and constructed a house over the same and started residing since the year 1973. He further submitted that when the private respondents 2 and 3 started interfering in peaceful living of the applicants, they preferred two suits for permanent injunction, which were dismissed thereafter they preferred an appeal before the District Judge, which too was also dismissed. Against the order passed in appeal, he preferred second appeal no.355 of 2009 (Mohd. Abbas Vs. Mohd. Nayeem) before this Court in which stay order was granted by this Court vide order dated 21.05.2013 thereafter extended on 17.02.2014 till further orders. He further submitted that in the year 2025 when the private respondents 2 and 3 started encroaching the property in question with the association of local police as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, a complaint was made in this regard but no action was taken and the applicants preferred Contempt Application (Civil) No.1221 of 2025 in which notices were issued to the private respondents on 25.04.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that immediately after notices were issued to the private respondents in aforesaid contempt application, the private respondents made a complaint and on the said complainant a report dated 27.04.2025 was prepared by Sub-Inspector Jitendra Kumar, of police station Shriduttganj, district Balrampur, which was submitted before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur in which he stated that stay order was passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.355 of 2009 on 17.02.2014 but, few days back the applicants started residing in the accommodation in question along with family members. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that specific date was not mentioned deliberately because the said report was prepared in fabricated manner. The relevant part of the report dated 27.04.2025 prepared by Jitendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police station Shriduttganj, district Balrampur is reproduced as under : "ससेववा मम, शश्रीमवान उपजजिलवाजधिकवारश्री महहोदय, उतररौलवा जिनपद बलरवामपपुर। महहोदय, सवादर अवगत करवानवा हहै कक पवाप्त पवाररनवा पत्र आवसेदक महोहम्मद फहश्रीम पपुत्र महोहम्मद नईम ककी जिवाजांच मपुझ उपकनरश्रीक्षक दवारवा मरौकसे पर जिवाकर ककयवा गयवा तहो जवात हहआ कक आवसेदक महोहम्मद फहश्रीम कनववासश्री गवाम मपुजिहनवा रवानवा शश्रीद्तगजांजि जिनपद बलरवामपपुर कसे रहनसे ववालसे हह तरवा कवपक्षश्री महोबश्रीन पपुत्र महो० अब्बवास कनववासश्री गवाम शसेखडश्रीह गहैर हवालपतवा मपुजिहनवा रवानवा शश्रीद्तगजांजि जिनपद बलरवामपपुर कसे रहनसे ववालसे हह। दरौड़नसे जिवाजांच जवात हहआ कक गवाटवा सजांख्यवा 105 ससरत गवाम मपुजिहनवा मम दहोननों पक्षनों कसे मध्य कब्जिसेदवारश्री कहो लसेकर कवववाद रवा। जजिसकवा मवाननश्रीय न्यवायवालय शश्रीमवान जजिलवा जिजि महहोदय बलरवामपपुर कसे यहवा ववाद सजांख्यवा 3/2009 महोहम्मद अब्बवास बनवाम महोहम्मद नईम दवायर रवा जजिसमम कदनवाजांक 28.05.2009 कहो उक्त मपुकदमवा खवाररजि हहो जिवानसे पर कवपक्षश्री महोहम्मद अब्बवास दवारवा मवाननश्रीय उच्च न्यवायवालय लखनऊ खजांडपश्रीठ लखनऊ मम ववाद सजांख्यवा 355/2009 महोहम्मद अब्बवास बनवाम महोहम्मद नईम दवायर ककयवा रवा। जजिसमम कदनवाजांक 17.02.2014 कहो यरवाससरकत बनवाए रखनसे कवा आदसेश पवाररत हहोनसे कसे बवावजिजूद कवपक्षश्री दवारवा आजि ससे कपु छ कदन पहलसे उक्त जिमश्रीन मम अपनसे पररववार कहो लवाकर रख कदयवा गयवा हहै। पररववार कहो उक्त जिमश्रीन ससे हटवानसे हसेतपु कई बवार कहवा गयवा तरवा यह भश्री बतवायवा गयवा कक जिब तक मवाननश्रीय उच्च न्यवायवालय लखनऊ खजांडपश्रीठ लखनऊ कवा अकगम आदसेश न आ जिवाए तब तक उक्त जिमश्रीन कहो खवालश्री रखम तरवा यरवाससरकत बनवाए रखसे परजांतपु कवपक्षश्री मवाननसे कहो तहैयवार नहहीं। तरवा आमवादवा फहै जिदवारश्री पर उतवारू हहो जिवा रहवा हहै। दहोननों पक्षनों कसे कवरुद अजांतगरत धिवारवा 170/126/135 BNSS ककी कवायरववाहश्री कदनवाजांक 27.04.2025 कहो ककयवा जिवा चपुकवा हहै। उक्त पकरण कसे सजांबजांधि मम मवाननश्रीय उपजजिलवाजधिकवारश्री महहोदय उतररौलवा बलरवामपपुर कसे यहवा अन्तगरत धिवारवा 145 सश्रीआरपश्रीसश्री ककी कवायरववाहश्री भश्री पजूवर मम ककयवा जिवा चपुकवा हहै। कफर भश्री कवपक्षश्री मवाननसे कहो तहैयवार नहहीं हहै। और नवा हश्री उक्त कवववाकदत जिमश्रीन ससे कब्जिवा छहोड़नसे कहो तहैयवार हह। उक्त कवववाकदत ज़मश्रीन खवालश्री नहहीं हहोतवा हहै तहो कभश्री भश्री अकपय घटनवा घट सकतश्री हहै। अततः शश्रीमवान जिश्री ससे कनवसेदन हहै कक उक्त कवववाकदत जिमश्रीन कहो कवपक्षश्री अब्दपुल महोकबन पपुत्र महो० अब्बवास ससे खवालश्री करवानसे कवा आदसेश पवाररत करनसे ककी कक पवा करम। ररपहोटर सवादर ससेववा मम पसेकषित हहै। (जिश्रीतसेन्द्र कपु मवार) उ०कन० रवानवा शश्रीद्तगजांजि जिनपद बलरवामपपुर" 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on the aforesaid fabricated report, proceedings under Section 145 CrPC were initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned. He further submitted that after receiving the notices issued to the applicants, they filed their objections even then order under Section 146 (1) CrPC has been passed without considering the status of the physical possession of the applicants therefore kind indulgence of this Court is required.

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer made by the applicants but he does not dispute the fact that in the report of Jitendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police station Shriduttganj, district Balrampur, which was submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, he himself admitted the possession of the applicants over the property in question but he did not mention the date of possession in the said report.

7. Considering the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the impugned order as well as other material available on record including the report submitted by Jitendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police station Shriduttganj, district Balrampur it is evident that applicants were in possession over the property in dispute at the time of passing of the order impugned therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

8. Issue notice to the opposite party nos.2 and 3.

9. List this case in the month of September, 2025.

10. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Criminal Case No.10821 of 2024 (Mohd. Faheem and another Vs Mobin and others, under Section 145 CrPC, police station Shriduttganj, district Balrampur, shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 11.6.2025. Rks.