HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8540 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajdeep Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Present application has been filed with the following main reliefs: "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 26.9.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Complaint. Case No.1228/2022 (Indrakala Versus Anita Devi & Others) as well as judgment and order dated 25.8.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-First, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal Revision No.204/2024 (Indrakala Versus State of UP. & Others) as contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to this Petition. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar to decide the complaint case filed by the petitioner afresh i.e. Complaint. Case No.1228/2022 (Indrakala Versus Anita Devi & Others) and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhir Kumar Pandey, Balwant Rai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Indrakala .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Sectt. Lko. And 7 Others .....Opposite Party(s) pass appropriate order for summoning of the opposite party no.2 to 8 in accordance with law." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar against opposite party nos.2 to 8 on 9.9.2022. The said application was treated as compliant case and thereafter statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant was recorded. The statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of witnesses PW-1 Prem Nath and PW-2 Digvijay Singh was also recorded and they supported the prosecution case as stated in the complaint case. The Magistrate called for a report from the police under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., which was submitted on 4.4.2025 by the concerned police station. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that after going through the statements of the complainant as well as witnesses, it is evident that offence is made out, therefore, the case could have been proceeded, but the court below i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar has rejected the complaint vide impugned order dated 26.9.2024. The said order was challenged by the applicant in revision, which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.8.2025. 5. It is the case of the applicant that once offence is made out after a bare perusal of the statements of the complainant as well as witnesses, it was incumbent upon the court below to issue summons and proceed accordingly, but the complaint has been rejected on wrong and flimsy grounds. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that both the courts below have given detailed findings and the fact has been recorded that Plot no.128 is Minjumla and all the tenure holders have their shares in the said plot, but no partition has taken place. The court below has recorded a finding that by way of oral mutual agreement, the partition had taken place, but the said partition is not by any court of law. The matter requires consideration by the civil court, therefore, the offence in criminal case as stated by learned counsel for the applicant is not made out. The finding is recorded based on settled principles of law that once the entire dispute appears to be civil dispute, launching criminal proceedings is not a correct way. A482 No. 8540 of 2025 2 7. After going through the record, I find that there is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the orders impugned. This application is not sustainable. It is accordingly dismissed. October 7, 2025 Sachin A482 No. 8540 of 2025 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench