Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Virendra Kumar
DURGA
Versus
KALLOO
Decided On : 25 April 1988
Crl. Rev. No. 564 of 1980
Revision Petition - Criminal Complaint - The court found that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature, as each party claimed title to the crop in question. The court concluded that the order of summoning of the accused was incorrect and set it aside.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were summoned in a criminal complaint under Section 447/395, I. P. C, filed by the complainant who claimed that his crop was forcibly cut and removed by the accused. The accused claimed that the crop belonged to them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and the order of summoning of the accused was incorrect.
Issues: Dispute over crop ownership, correctness of the order of summoning of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and the order of summoning of the accused was incorrect.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed and the order of the court summoning the accused was set aside.
This revision petition has been moved by 14 persons, who were made accused in a criminal complaint under Section 447/395, I. P. C , filed by Kalloo, opposite party No. 1 it is pending before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate Lucknow, in which statements were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. and thereafter the Magistrate ordered on 21-10-1980 for summoning of the accused under Section 395/149, I. P. C. and 20-11-1980 was fixed for appearance.
2. Aggrieved by the order of summoning of the accused, the accused revisionists have filed this revision petition.
3. After filing of the revision petition on 18-12-1980, the proceedings before the Magistrate were stayed and since then the proceedings are lying stayed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It seems that there was a dispute with regard to title of plot No. 504, to which the complainant claims as his land while from the side of the accused their claim was put forward. The complainant came forward with the case that his crop was forcibly cut and removed by the accused. From the side of the revisionist it is contended that the crop in question belonged to the revisionist and therefore, they are quite justi fied in cutting the same. In respect of the incident in question no first informa tion report seems to be lodged. According to the complainant the police has not written the first information report. Having regard to the facts and cir cumstances of the case it seems that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature because each of the two parties are setting their title and claim to the crop in question which must be non-existent now.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances order of summoning of the accused by the court below calls for interferences as it does not seem to be correct.
6. In view of the circumstances the revision petition is allowed and the order of the court below dated 21-10-1980, summoning of the accused is set aside.
Revision allowed.
.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
