Allahabad High Court
Shiv Kumar Prajapati vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 19 March, 2026
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:56238 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3100 of 2026 Shiv Kumar Prajapati .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kumar Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 53 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Kumar Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on record.
3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner- Shiv Kumar Prajapati, with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Jaunpur, in Misc. Application No. 85 of 2024 (Shiv Kumar Prajapati Vs. Shankar Prajapati & others) as well as order dated 03.11.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge-I, Jaunpur, in Criminal Revision No. 427 of 2024 (Shiv Kumar Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. & others) with a further prayer to direct the trial court to direct the Police Station- Linebazar to register the First Information report against private respondents. And / or issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The facts of the case are that an application dated 27.02.2024 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 alleging therein that Smt. Geeta Devi of his village is a person having bad antecedents and is involved in committing forgery and is a bhu-mafia involved with them. The accused in an illegal manner tried to sell land identified as Arazi No. 278 having an area of 0.0690 hectare which is registered in the revenue records in Form No. 41 & 45. They were stopped but no action was taken. Geeta Devi has also filed a case before the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Jaunpur as Original Suit No. 1899 / 2023 (Geeta Devi Vs. Shiv Kumar and others) in which notice has been issued. On 15.01.2024 at about 11 am the accused forcibly entered in the said property and broke the boundary wall and tried to dig it. On opposing, they abused him and stated that they have purchased the land through a sale-deed. On hearing the shouts people of nearby reached there. On coming to know of a sale-deed being executed he was disturbed and contacted the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and took the details of it. The petitioner approached the concerned police station but no action was taken. He is thus moving an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. with the prayer to lodge a first information report and its investigation. The said application was considered by the court concerned and vide order dated 16.07.2024 it was dismissed. A revision was preferred against the same which also stood dismissed vide judgement & order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge-I, Jaunpur.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused respondent nos. 1 to 7 have forcibly entered into Government land and are involved in selling it illegally. It is submitted that the petitioner was threatened of dire consequences. It is submitted that the trial court concerned has without appreciating the fact that the accused have illegally entered into a land and by illegal means making efforts to sell it dismissed the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. opining that the present dispute is a civil dispute. It is submitted that even the revisional court did not appreciate the matter in its true prospective and dismissed the same.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and the petition for writ.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the dispute relates to the title of the land in dispute. A civil suit has already been filed by one of the accused against the complaint, the same is pending before the civil court concerned. The dispute is primarily civil in nature and an effort has been made to give it a colour of criminal case. The order of the trial court and even the order of the revisional court are well considered orders in the facts & circumstances of the case. No case for interference is made out.
8. The present petition is dismissed.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
March 19, 2026
AS Rathore
Â
Â