Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:46060 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3290 of 2024 Revisionist :- Radhika Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Udai Shankar Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashank Kumar,Vinod Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Udai Shankar Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Shashank Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasimabad, District Ghazipur in Case No. 2131 of 2024 (Hardeshiya alias Hardasi Vs. Radhika Devi) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 145 Cr.P.C., direction had been issued to the Police Station Baresar, District Ghazipur to attach the land of Vilage-Ahirauli bearing Gata No. 163/5 measuring 0.1150 hectares, Gata No.106/2 measuring 0.4050 hectares, Gata No. 178 measuring 0.7150 hectares, Gata No. 191 measuring 0.1860 hectares, Gata No. 107 measuring 0.0040 hectares, Gata No. 51/1 measuring 0.3160 hectares, Gata No. 51/3 measuring 0.3010 hectares and the land of Hamlet Pahadpur bearing Gata No. 8 measuring 0.6610 hectares and further to hand-over the said land in the custody of some reliable person. 3. It has been contended on behalf of revisionists that they pursuant to the notice issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasimabad, District Ghazipur, had submitted their reply on 02.05.2024. The reply submitted by the revisionists had duly been received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 02.05.2024 itself and he directed that the objections be kept on file. It has further been contended that in spite of there being objections filed on behalf of revisionists, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasimabad, District Ghazipur, while passing the impugned order dated 3.05.2024, had recorded a finding that in spite of notice having been served on the Revisionist No. 1, she has not chosen to file any reply. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has argued that once it is apparent from the record that the revisionists have filed their reply in response to the notice issued to them by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasimabad, District Ghazipur in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., there cannot be any occasion for not considering the said reply. It has further been argued that once it is apparent from the record that the reply was duly submitted by the revisionists and it has not been considered while passing the impugned order, it is in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice that the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 may be set-aside and matter may be remanded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasimabad, District Ghazipur to decide Case No. 2131 of 2024 afresh, after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the revisionists and also after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, though tried to defend the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 but he could not dispute the fact that the revisionists have filed their reply to the show cause notice and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, without considering the said reply, cannot be allowed to sustain. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 also could not dispute the fact that the revisionists have already filed their reply and therefore that reply is bound to be considered but the consideration of reply is completely missing in the impugned order. On the contrary, in the impugned order, it has been said that the revisionists have not submitted any reply to the show cause notice. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed with this criminal revision. 8. It is apparent from perusal of Page Nos. 65 to 67 of this criminal revision that the revisionists have filed their reply pursuant to notice issued to them in the proceedings initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and on the said reply, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasimabad, District Ghazipur himself had made an endorsement 'keep in file'. 9. Once the reply was submitted by the revisionists, it was not appropriate for the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasimabad, District Ghazipur to pass the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 without considering the said reply and further it was also not appropriate for him to record an incorrect fact in the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 that no reply has been filed by the revisionists. 10. This Court finds that the order dated 03.05.2024, impugned in this criminal revision, had been passed without considering the reply submitted by the revisionists therefore, it is in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice that the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 may be set-aside and the matter may be remanded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasimabad, District Ghazipur to reconsider and decide the Case No. 2131 of 2024 (Hardeshiya alias Hardasi Vs. Radhika Devi) afresh, after considering the reply submitted by the revisionists and after affording opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasimabad, District Ghazipur in Case No. 2131 of 2024 (Hardeshiya alias Hardasi Vs. Radhika Devi), is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasimabad, District Ghazipur to decide Case No. 2131 of 2024, Computerized Case No. T202414291102131 (Hardeshiya alias Hardasi Vs. Radhika Devi), afresh after considering the reply submitted by the revisionists and after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad