Allahabad High Court
CHANDRAPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 22 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Holding
The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR and that any further stay must be sought through the appropriate application in the pending appeal.
Summary
Petitioner Chandrapal Singh filed a writ petition alleging that, despite an interim order dated 15 May 2026 issued by the Additional Commissioner in his appeal, private respondents were attempting to dispossess him and cause damage to his property. He sought directions for the police to register FIRs against the alleged wrongdoers based on applications filed on 23 June, 30 June and 6 July 2026. The Court held that it does not have jurisdiction to order the registration of an FIR, as criminal law provides a separate remedy for the petitioner. Regarding the stay, the Court observed that the appellate authority had already stayed the operation of the order/decree, and any further stay must be sought through the appropriate application in the pending appeal. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition without granting any relief. The petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to direct police authorities to register an FIR in a revenue matter writ petition.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh stay of the interim order passed by the Additional Commissioner.
Subjects
- stay order
- interim order
- jurisdiction
- police FIR
- revenue matters
- writ petition
- disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38448 of 2026
Chandrapal Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 22 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhijit Mishra, Raj Kumari Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Avinash Chandra Srivastava, C.S.C.
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents and Shri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the
Gaon Sabha.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite the fact that an interim order
dated 15.05.2026 has been passed by the Additional Commissioner in the
appeal preferred by the petitioner, the private respondents are attempting
to dispossess the petitioner and cause damage to the property in multiple
ways and, therefore, prayer has been made to direct the respondents to
pass orders on applications dated 23.06.2026, 30.06.2026 and 06.07.2026.
3. A perusal of the applications indicates that prayer has been made to
police authorities to register FIR against the alleged wrongdoers.
4. This Court sitting in Writ-C arising out of revenue matters does not
have jurisdiction to direct the police authorities to register FIR for which
purpose the petitioner has other remedy available to him as per the
provisions of criminal law.
5. As far as the stay aspect is concerned, a perusal of the interim order
passed by the Additional Commissioner shows that though prayer for
maintaining status quo was made by the petitioner, the appellate court
stayed the effect and operation of the order/decree before it.
6. In case subsequent to passing of the said interim order, circumstances
have given rise to a situation where a fresh stay order is required, it is
WRIC No. 38448 of 2026
2
always open for the petitioner to move appropriate application in the
pending appeal.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
September 23, 2026
AKShukla/-
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…