RAMCHANDAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vipin Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

(2.) This Criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist for setting aside the order dated 04.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, District Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 337 of 2012 (Ram Chandra Agarwal Vs. Umesh Pratap Singh and others).

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist is that a bare perusal of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. discloses commission of a cognizable offence but the court below has rejected the said application vide its order dated 4.9.2012 on the ground that this matter pertains to the disobedience of the injunction decree of the Civil Court and the decree holder has alternative remedy under Order 21 C.P.C. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate did not rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate is without application of mind and against the preposition of law. It is also submitted that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is erroneous and against the procedure of law on the face of record, as such, the same is liable to be set aside.