Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20295 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 279 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajesh Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Katyayan Mishra,Mahendra Kumar Verma,Mohd. Rafi Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Katyayan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. By means of present application under Section 528 of BNSS, the applicant has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.09.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur passed in Case No. 169 of 2024 - Rajesh Mishra Vs. Devesh Mishra and Others as well as revisional order dated 11.02.2025, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Criminal Revision No. 183 of 2024, wherein the applicant had assailed the order dated 19.09.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that a complaint was preferred by the applicant with regard to ingress/egress as as the same was being interfered by the opposite parties and on objection being raised by the applicant, they had abused him and also assaulted him and threatened him that they would completely stop his passage to and from his house. 5. It is next stated that the complainant-applicant in this regard gave a complaint to the concerned Police Station, but the concerned Sub Inspector - Man Singh also threatened the applicant stating that he would file false case against him and put him in jail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur after perusal of the record came to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties is only with regard to passage and is a civil dispute which is being given colour of criminal nature and consequently, rejected the application vide order dated 19.09.2024. 6. Against the order dated 19.09.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, the applicant preferred revision before the Sessions Jude, Sitapur, who duly considered the grievance raised by the applicant and came to the conclusion that from the facts stated before him, it is clear that there is dispute with regard to exit from house of the applicant. It is noticed that opposite party nos. 4 to 8, are family members of the applicant, which fact has been admitted by the applicant in his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and even the report of the concerned Police Station was taken cognizance of stating that there is pre-existing dispute of partition between the parties, accordingly, relying upon the various judgments and taking account of provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C., which states that no cognizance can be taken against a Sub Inspector unless prior sanction of prosecution is obtained and rejected the revision of the applicant. Before this Court also, the arguments raised before the revisional Court have been reiterated. 7. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the revision. He has submitted that it is admitted position that dispute is between family members pertaining to right of exit. He states that present dispute is outcome of the dispute of partition which is purely of civil dispute and same is being given colour of criminal case. Apart from the fact that no sanction has been obtained for prosecuting the Sub Inspector and hence has supported the impugned orders. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur or in the revision order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur. From the perusal of record there is no doubt that present dispute is between family members themselves and pertains to right of exit, such a dispute is being sought to be given colour of criminal case by seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against the private opposite parties with the sustenance of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Apart from the above, this Court also does not find any error in the impugned orders that cognizance has been declined in absence of any sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, no interference is required in the matter by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The application being devoid of merits is rejected. Order Date :- 10.4.2025/A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench