Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86840 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11540 of 2025 Applicant :- Kundal Tiwari @ Shriprakash Tiwari And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vinay Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicants, counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has raised a preliminary objection that Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable against application for discharge, whereas revision lies. 3. Answering the aforesaid objection, counsel for the applicants submits that a reasoned and speaking order has yet not been passed in the discharge application. It amounts to deep scrutiny and process of law. 4. Looking to the aforesaid, Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against the application for discharge. 5. Counsel for the applicants submits that an FIR was lodged with false and frivolous allegations to give criminal colour to a civil nature of dispute. He submits that some part of the property in question was given to opposite party no.2, which belongs to the applicants, and when they tried to encroach upon the other area, an objection was raised by the applicants. Being annoyed by the same, a story has been created making allegations of abusing and molesting opposite party no.2. 6. A discharge application has been moved by the applicants taking a specific ground that there is no evidence to show that any such incident has taken place and it is very easy to make allegation regarding molestation, whereas no injury has been sustained by opposite party no.2. 7. Ignoring the aforesaid, a specific ground has been taken in the discharge application that in order to give criminal colour to a civil nature of dispute and to encroach upon the property, which belongs to the applicants, the present false FIR has been lodged against the applicants. The order rejecting the discharge application dated 27.01.2025 has been passed without any application of mind, therefore, the same has been challenged by means of the present application. The grounds as taken in the discharge application has not been touched upon by the court below. 8. The counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. could not dispute the aforesaid facts by any means. 9. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the records, it transpires that the court below has failed to apply its judicial mind. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, is hereby, quashed. 11. The matter is remitted to the court concerned to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, after hearing all concerned parties. 12. Till the decision, as aforesaid, is taken or for a period of two months from today, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in pursuance of Sessions Trial No.1152 of 2023 (State Vs. Kundal Tiwari and others), arising out of Case Crime No.142 of 2022, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 354Kh, 452, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Barahalganj, District Gorakhpur. 13. The application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid orders. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 CS/- Digitally signed by :- CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad