Bindu Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 156(3)
Judgment
Heard Shri Narendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
This petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated
27.09.2024 passed in Misc. Case No. 35 of 2024, (Bindu Singh Versus Ramjee and others), under Section-156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station-Cantt, District-Ayodhya by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Ayodhya and alsoorder dated 23.05.2025 passed in Revision No. 316 of 2024, (Bindu Singh Versus State of U.P. and others), by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ayodhya.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner and the sale deed as the property, which was purchased by the petitioner, has been sold by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 3 changing the boundary marks and, in turn, Shri Jitendra Kumar Chauhan has transferred the same to the respondent no.4, which could not have been done, but the learned courts below, without considering it, has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 156(3) CrPC and the revision has also been dismissed.
Learned AGA for the State opposed the submission(s) of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that impugned orders have rightly 2 A482 No. 8157 of 2025 been passed as the civil dispute is being tried to give the criminal colour.
Having considered the submission(s) of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of material placed on record(s) of this petition, it appears to be a case of boundary dispute in the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and by the respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 3. Even otherwise a civil dispute between the parties has been tried to give colour of criminal, which is not permissible in law and the remedy lies before the civil court. Thus, the impugned orders have rightly been passed in accordance with law and there is no illegality or error in it.
In view of above, the petition is misconceived and lacks merit.
Dismissed accordingly. September 25, 2025 Raj (Rajnish Kumar,J.) RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.