HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18399 of 2026 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit preferred today by learned counsel for applicant which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Paritosh Joshi, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant application has been preferred with a prayer to quash order dated 08.02.2023 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tamkuhiraj, Kushinagar in Case No.1913 of 2022 (Rohit Pratap Shahi Vs. Maheshwar Pratap Shahi), under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. whereby, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo over the property in dispute. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 08.02.2023, had acted beyond its jurisdiction in shape of directing both the parties to maintain status quo over the property in dispute, since he is not empowered to pass such direction specifically when the civil suit in respect of dispute over the same property, is still before learned court concerned. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant further contended that the impugned order was also challenged by applicant by way of preferring Criminal Revision No.77 of 2023 which was dismissed by learned revisional court vide order dated 06.07.2025 on the ground that by the impugned order, both the parties were directed to produce their evidence in respect of possession over the property in dispute only on the date fixed. It has also been observed in the order dated 06.07.2025 by learned revisional court that no decision in respect of possession over the disputed property was given by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Parijat Srivastava, Sumit Suri Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Maheshwar Pratap Shahi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) concerned SDM and only for maintaining peace, order of status quo was passed. It has also been submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant that at present, applicant is in possession of the disputed property. 5. A precise query has been made before learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant that at any point of time, it was brought into knowledge of the concerned SDM that with regard to the same property, a civil suit is pending. In reply to the same, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant has fairly submitted that such information was never furnished before the concerned SDM at any point of time. 6. By bare perusal of the impugned order dated 08.02.2023, it is apparent that no decision in respect of possession over the disputed property was given by concerned SDM and only for maintaining peace, order of status quo was passed directing both the parties to produce their evidence/document in respect of their possession over the property in dispute, and it is also an admitted fact that at no point of time, it was brought into knowledge of the concerned SDM that with regard to the same property, a civil suit is pending. Considering the said facts, no interference is required in the order impugned. 7. Applicant is hereby directed to prefer document/evidence in respect of his possession over the disputed property before concerned SDM where the proceedings under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. is pending to be adjudicated finally. 8. Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of. May 5, 2026 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 18399 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad