HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 410 of 2017 Court No. - 27 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned court below has wrongly rejected the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 20.6.2014, which was challenged in the revision but the revision was also rejected vide order dated 1.10.2015. He further submits that S.D.M. as well as revisional court failed to consider the fact that public way was being encroached by the private respondents. He also submits that report submitted by the police was not considered in the correct prospective, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary. 4. Learned A.G.A. oppose the prayer of the applicant and submits that in the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C., it is alleged that private respondent no.3 unearthing the road for foundation of some construction but in the report of the concerned police station dated 30.4.2010, it was mentioned that drainage of the house was opened on the road and some part of the chappar was also on the road, as a result, disturbance is being created to the passers, therefore, there is contradiction in the allegations made in the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. as well as report of the police. He also submits that record reveals that regular suit is pending in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate Kailash Nath Tiwari .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And Ors. .....Opposite Party(s) between the parties for the property in question. 5. The specific question is asked from the learned counsel for the applicant about the status of suit but he is unable to explain. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that there is major contradiction in the contents of the application filed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. as well as report submitted by the police. It is also evident that a Civil Suit No.701/2013 is pending before the Civil Court between the parties for issue in question. 7. In such circumstances, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. September 4, 2025 GauraV/- A482 No. 410 of 2017 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench