Sooraj vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following main prayer :-

"I. Issue an order or direction in the suitable nature quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court no.1, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 701 of 2024 as well as the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.3, Meerut in Complaint Case no.1271/2024 (Sooraj vs State of U.P. & another), Police Station Rohta, District Meerut.

II- Issue an order, or direction in the suitable nature, commanding/directing the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.3, Meerut to decide the Complaint Case no. 1271/2024 (Sooraj vs State of U.P. & another), Police Station Rohta, District Meerut and pass a fresh order in accordance with law."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a lease-deed was executed between the petitioner and respondent no.2 on 24.10.2017 wherein it was stipulated that an amount of Rs.5000/- per month will be paid by respondent. However, the respondent deliberately withheld the lease rent and never paid it to the petitioner. Even the respondent did not vacate the land of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Complaint No.1271 of 2024 (Sooraj Singh vs. Raj Kumar & Anr.) and his complaint case was dismissed by trial court on 18.9.2024 after observing that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. He submitted that before recording such finding it was incumbent upon the trial court to inquire into the allegations by resorting to the proceedings under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. However, the learned Magistrate has mechanically dismissed his complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 18.9.2024 without adverting to the allegations in his complaint and came to a conclusion upon whims and fancies.

4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.9.2024, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.701 of 2024 (Sooraj Singh vs. Raj Kumar & Anr.). Even the revisional court failed to consider the true import of the allegations mentioned in the complaint of the petitioner and dismissed his criminal revision on 12.3.2025. Learned counsel submitted that both courts have grossly erred in not properly evaluating and appreciating the allegations made in the complaint. Hence, both orders are liable to be set aside.

5. Learned AGA submitted that the trial court has given a specific finding that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. Hence, none of the orders warrants any interference.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is relevant to note that the petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was intentionally misled by the respondent during the execution of lease-deed where the rent was described as Rs.500/- per month instead of Rs.5000/- per month. The entire allegations coupled with the aforementioned fact, prima facie, reveal that dispute between the parties pertains to the rent agreed between the parties at the time of execution of lease-deed. However, it is also relevant to mention that nothing prevents the petitioner from revoking the so called lease-deed and asking the respondent to vacate his land. Even if petitioner remains unsuccessfully in redeeming his land from the respondent through legal means, he has an appropriate remedy available under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. Hence, the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity.

8. This petition is, accordingly dismissed. The impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as by the revisional court are hereby upheld.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

May 7, 2026

SK