RAM SUBHAG PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

(2.) I have gone through the annexures appended to the affidavit filed in support of the present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that an application was moved by opposite party No. 3 Sada Nand against his own brother that there is a dispute with regard to the partition as well as possession of the holding between them. Even the police report also discloses clearly that there exists a dispute for partition as well as possession between these brothers. The police report, however, also indicate that the disputed property was in possession of applicant. The applicant was holding entire joint property for himself as well as on behalf of his brother since it was not partitioned. Even the order of learned S.D.M. under Section 145(1), Cr. P.C. and the order under Section 146(1), Cr. P.C. are also indicative of the same situation.