SOORAJversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13878 of 2025

Sooraj
                                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                             :        Brij Lal Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)                             :        G.A.

Court No. - 89
                      HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A.
for the State are present.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed with the following main prayer :-

      "I. Issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the
      impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the
      Additional Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court
      no.1, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 701 of 2024 as well as the
      impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief
      Judicial Magistrate, Court no.3, Meerut in Complaint Case no.1271/2024
      (Sooraj vs State of U.P. & another), Police Station Rohta, District
      Meerut.

      II-    Issue   an   order,   or     direction       in    the    suitable   nature,
      commanding/directing the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
      Court no.3, Meerut to decide the Complaint Case no. 1271/2024 (Sooraj
      vs State of U.P. & another), Police Station Rohta, District Meerut and
      pass a fresh order in accordance with law."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a lease-deed was
executed between the petitioner and respondent no.2 on 24.10.2017
wherein it was stipulated that an amount of Rs.5000/- per month will be
paid by respondent. However, the respondent deliberately withheld the
lease rent and never paid it to the petitioner. Even the respondent did not
                                                        A227 No. 13878 of 2025
                               2


vacate the land of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal
Complaint No.1271 of 2024 (Sooraj Singh vs. Raj Kumar & Anr.) and his
complaint case was dismissed by trial court on 18.9.2024 after observing
that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. He submitted
that before recording such finding it was incumbent upon the trial court to
inquire into the allegations by resorting to the proceedings under Section
202(1) Cr.P.C. However, the learned Magistrate has mechanically
dismissed his complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 18.9.2024 without
adverting to the allegations in his complaint and came to a conclusion
upon whims and fancies.

4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.9.2024, the petitioner preferred
Criminal Revision No.701 of 2024 (Sooraj Singh vs. Raj Kumar & Anr.).
Even the revisional court failed to consider the true import of the
allegations mentioned in the complaint of the petitioner and dismissed his
criminal revision on 12.3.2025. Learned counsel submitted that both
courts have grossly erred in not properly evaluating and appreciating the
allegations made in the complaint. Hence, both orders are liable to be set
aside.

5. Learned AGA submitted that the trial court has given a specific finding
that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. Hence, none of
the orders warrants any interference.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is relevant to note that the petitioner in his statement recorded under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was intentionally misled by the
respondent during the execution of lease-deed where the rent was
described as Rs.500/- per month instead of Rs.5000/- per month. The
entire allegations coupled with the aforementioned fact, prima facie,
reveal that dispute between the parties pertains to the rent agreed between
the parties at the time of execution of lease-deed. However, it is also
relevant to mention that nothing prevents the petitioner from revoking the
so called lease-deed and asking the respondent to vacate his land. Even if
petitioner remains unsuccessfully in redeeming his land from the
respondent through legal means, he has an appropriate remedy available
under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. Hence, the impugned orders
                                                                                        A227 No. 13878 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    do not suffer from any infirmity.

                                    8. This petition is, accordingly dismissed. The impugned orders passed
                                    by the trial court as well as by the revisional court are hereby upheld.


                                                                                         (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    SK




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad