Sanket Kumari vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 28 March, 2026

Allahabad High Court

Sanket Kumari vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 28 March, 2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:65153
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1483 of 2025   
 
   Sanket Kumari    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 6 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Saurabh Tripathi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 89
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.     

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent, and Sri Subham Tandon, State Law Officer .

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue an appropriate order to set aside/quashed the revisional order dated 24.10.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Chitrakoot District Chitrakoot in Criminal Revision No.93 of 2023 (Sanket Kumari Vs. Rekha Devi and others) and also quash the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot District Chitrakoot in Criminal Misc. No.383 of 2023 (Sanket Kumari Vs. Rekha Devi and others), at Police Station Kotwali Karwi, District Chitrakoot.

SPONSORED

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have encroached upon his land by demolishing the boundary wall and raising construction thereon. In this regard, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate. However, the said application was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 18.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 383 of 2023 (Sanket Kumari vs. Rekha Devi and others), holding that the dispute between the parties prima facie appears to be of a civil nature.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2023 (Sanket Kumari vs. Rekha Devi and others). It is submitted that the Revisional Court has also failed to consider the fact that photographs pertaining to the alleged demolition were filed along with the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the court below had ample opportunity either to verify the photographs or to seek a police report regarding the allegations. According to the petitioner, the allegations made in the application prima facie disclose offences under Sections 427, 504, and 506 IPC. Thus, it is contended that both the courts below have committed illegality in ignoring the allegations as well as the material placed on record.

5. Sri Shubham Tandon, learned State Law Officer, has submitted that the allegations primarily disclose a civil dispute. It is submitted that the petitioner claims to have purchased the land in the year 1999 and that the dispute relates to boundary demarcation as mentioned in the sale deed. It is further submitted that although the petitioner claimed in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that he had video footage of the alleged demolition, the same was not produced before the court of first instance. It is argued that material evidence not produced before the court of first instance cannot be considered at this stage in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders dated 18.10.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot, in Criminal Misc. No. 383 of 2023, as well as the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot, in Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2023.

7. This Court is of the view that if a party possesses material evidence, it is incumbent upon such party to produce the same before the court of first instance. In the present case, it was the duty of the petitioner to place the alleged video footage before the concerned Magistrate at the time of filing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

8. So far as the photographs annexed with the application are concerned, the same, by themselves, are insufficient to conclusively establish the allegations, as their veracity cannot be effectively verified merely by perusal.

9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders dated 18.10.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot, and the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot, in Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2023. The said orders are hereby affirmed.

10. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

March 28, 2026/Mukesh

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)