The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of a prima facie case for the offences under Section 451 and 380 IPC in the rejection of a discharge application.

Om Prakash-VII,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with the prayer to quash the order dated 10.2.2016 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mathura in Criminal Case No. 837 of 2015 (Gopal Prasad Vs. Ratan Singh) under Section 451 , 380 IPC, Police Station Kosi Kalam District Mathura.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that discharge application was rejected by the concerned Magistrate on insufficient ground. In-fact no offence under Section 451 and 380 IPC are attracted in the present matter. This Court in the writ jurisdiction has clearly held that matter is of civil nature. Thus, the court below ought to have allowed the discharge application. Observations recorded by the concerned Magistrate in the order dated 10.2.2016 are illegal and perverse.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. argued that relief claimed in the civil writ was different, hence the jurisdiction of the criminal court in the matter is not barred. Discharge application was rejected by the concerned Magistrate on sufficient ground. On the basis of grounds taken in the revision, no relief could be granted in favour of the revisionist. Thus, prayer has been made to dismissed the revision at this stage.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire record.

6. One Gopal Prasad Sharma had filed Writ-C No. 36740 of 2013 and the Division Bench of this Court on 10.7.2013 passed the following order: -

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Petitioner has grievance that in spite of approaching the District Level Authorities/Committee, he is not getting any help against private respondent nos.5 and 6 who have allegedly tried to interfere with two plots in industrial area which the petitioner claims to be his.

Copy of the petitioner's application is not on record but he has already filed an application before Station House Officer, P.S. Kosikalan, District Mathura on 19.09.2011 for lodging F.I.R. against the private respondents. If the criminal proceeding is not having desired effect, petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for seeking injunction or other suitable interim orders. It would not be proper for this Court to direct the Police or Executive Authorities to interfere in private dispute over property between individuals.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty that petitioner if so advised, may approach the Civil Court for seeking relief. In case Civil Court passes an order in favour of the petitioner then it would be duty of the District Administration to implement the order of the Civil Court."

7. Applicant had earlier approached this Court taking recourse of the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 36759 of 2013 and this Court on 30.7.2015 passed the following order: -

"Case has been listed peremptorily today.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sandeep Shukla learned counsel holding brief of Sri Chandan Sharma learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A.

Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 663 of 2012 arising out of case crime No. 390 of 2013 under Sections 451, 380 IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, district Mathura and to quash the summoning order dated 28.5.2013 passed in the aforesaid case.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had purchased the property in question in auction from UPFC and was also put in possession of the same by the officials of UPFC on 11.10.1999. It is contended that after lapse of 11 years, opposite party No. 2, who is erstwhile owner of the property and was declared defaulter on account of non payment of the loan, has initiated presen