MAAN BABU DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is revision against the judgment and order dated 7-2- 2001 passed by Sri Brahma Singh, then learned Session Judge, Kushinagar in Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2000, Smt. Lakhrani. v. State of U.P. & Anr.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that on 27-9-2000 Maan Babu Dubey moved an application before the Station Officer of police Station Kuber Nath district Khushinagar with the allegation that he is adopted son of late Laxmi Dubey and a registered deed of adoption was also executed and he inherited entire property of Laxmi Dubey after his death. His Pattidar Aniruddh Dubey was not happy with the above adoption, and had been committing atrocities upon him. He had sown crop of paddy and sugarcane in his plots Nos. 280 and 27. Aniruddh Dubey and his colleagues Tahir and Majeed were planning to harvest the crop and threatening to kill him. It was, therefore, prayed that suitable action should be taken against them. The Station Officer of Police Station Kuber Nath marked that application to Sri Banarasi Yadav Sub- Inspector for investigation and after receipt of report of the Sub-Inspector Sri Umashanker Tiwari submitted a report before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Kasia district Kushinagar in which he stated that crops of paddy and sugarcane had been sown in the aforesaid two plots and both Maan Babu Dubey and Smt. Lakhrani widow of late Laxmi Dubey are claiming it to be their own property. Maan Babu Dubey claimed himself to be adopted son of Laxmi Dubey and Smt. Lakhrani claimed herself to be widow of Laxmi Dybey and there was tension between both the parties and so it was prayed that action should be taken under Sections 145 and 146, Cr.P.C.

(3.) NOTICE of this revision was issued to the State of U.P. O.P. No. 1 as well as to Smt. Lakhrani O.P. No. 2. Smt. Lakhrani put in appearance through Sri K.D. Tiwari, Advocate, but none appeared on her behalf at the time of hearing of arguments in this revision. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionist and of the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State were heard and record of the case was perused and now I am deciding this revision on merits.