Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66723 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15278 of 2020 Applicant :- Mohd. Khalid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose),Mohd. Kalim,Shadab Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with following prayer: "(a) to set-aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2020 passed by A.C.J.M., Deoband Saharanpur, in Misc. Case No. 02 of 2020, 'Mohd. Khalid Vs. Saiyyad Ayyaj and others', Police Station Deoband, District- Saharanpur by which the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. (b) to direct the learned court below to decide the application dated 01.01.2020 filed by the applicant under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. registered as Misc. Case No. 02 of 2020, 'Mohd. Khalid Vs. Saiyyad Ayyaj and others' Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur a fresh." 3. It is alleged in application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that opposite party nos. 2 to 4 despite entering into an agreement to sale they had not executed the sale-deed and when applicant approached opposite parties for executing the sale-deed, they threatened the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate has called a report from concerned police station and police station has submitted a report in this regard, which is annexed at page-84 of the present application that opposite party nos. 2 to 4 had executed an agreement to sale by changing their names in Aadhar Cards. On primary inquiry, Investigating Officer has found that opposite party nos. 2 to 4 in pursuance of the agreement to sale have used abusive language against the applicant. He next submitted that Trial Court without considering the Investigating Officer's report, in most arbitrary manner rejected the 156(3) Cr.P.C. application of the applicant, which is liable to be set-aside. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant. 6. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From the record, it is apparent that the date of limitation for executing the sale-deed was 30.06.2014 but the date of limitation for executing the sale-deed was changed to 24.06.2019. The learned Magistrate has found that applicant has not filed application with correct facts. Application filed by applicant creates doubt with regard to limitation after execution of sale-deed and dates entered in the application, have been interpolated/corrected. Further, learned Magistrate after duly considering the material evidence available on record found nothing against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, as such, rejected the 156(3) Cr.P.C. application of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant could not show any illegality in the order dated 30.07.2020 passed by learned Magistrate, rejecting the 156(3) Cr.P.C. application of the applicant. No case for interference by this Court is made out. 7. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, application has remedy to file complaint as provided under Cr.P.C. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Aditya Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad