ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arvind Nath Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K.K. Rajbhar, learned counsel, who appears for the opposite party No.1.

(2.) The applicant has filed present application purported to be under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dtd. 7/6/2019 passed in Complaint Case No.519 of 2019, Anil Kumar Vs. Akram Guddu Mistri and others, under Ss. 419, 420, 466, 467, 471, 120(B), 34, 406 I.P.C. against opposite parties no. 2, 3 and 4 as well as the order dtd. 20/8/2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.115 of 2019, Anil Kumar Vs. Akram Guddu Mistri and others, under Sec. 397 Cr.P.C. passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Jhansi.

(3.) According to the applicant Gata No.313 Rakba 0.24 hectare situate in Village Mau, Tehsil Mauranipur, which is recorded as Pokhar in the revenue records. However, the opposite parties have illegally encroached the said Pokhar and have constructed Panchyat Bhawan over it.