Before the Court of District and Session Judge Jhansi

Criminal Revision No………….. Of 2023

(Arising out of order dated 13.04.2023 passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Jhansi)
In re
Case Crime No. 1987/2022
Rajendra Kumar v/s Damodar Das Agrawal & Ors
In the matter of;
Rajendra Kumar versus Damodar Das Agrawal & Ors
Index

S.No Particulars Page Nos

1. Criminal Revision under section 397 of CRPC with

affidavit.
2. Annexure No.01
True/Certified copy of impugned order dated
13.04.2023.
3. Annexure No.02
Photo/True Copy of Transfer Application dated
25.4.2023.

4. Annexure No.03

Photo/True copy of Screen Shot/ Status of aforesaid

case.

5. Identity Proof
6. Vakalatnama

Date 06.05.2023
(Anupam Verma)
Advocate.
with

(Prerna Verma)
Advocate
Counsel(s) for Applicant.

Before the Court of District and Session Judge Jhansi

 Criminal Revision No………….. Of 2023
(Arising out of order dated 13.04.2023 passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Jhansi)
In re
Case Crime No. 1987/2022
Rajendra Kumar v/s Damodar Das Agrawal & Ors
In the matter of;

Rajendra Kumar aged about 51 years S/o Late Bihari Lal 134 Chaudhariyana
Jhansi 284302.
………..Applicant.

VERSUS

1. Damodar Das Agrawal S/o Late Bhagwan Das Agrawal R/o 160 Heegan
Katra Jhansi.
2. Shankar Lal Tivari S/o Late Chintaman Tivari R/o Nivasi Lakshi Gate, Sh.
Bihari Ji Maharaj Ka Mandir Jhansi.
3. Birendra Rai S/o C.L. Rai R/o Green Park Calony, Jhansi.
4. Anju Agrawal w/o Raju Agrawal R/o Kailash Residency Jhansi.
5. Raju Agrawal R/o Kailash Residency Jhansi.
6. Shikha Agrawal w/o Anil Agrawal 30/1 Chaturyana Jhansi .
7. Anil Agrawal S/o Ramesh Chandra 30/1 Chaturyana Jhansi.
8. Rakesh Agrawal S/o Jai Prakash Agrawal, 56 Taksal Jhansi.
9. Ankit Rai S/o Ramji Rai R/o Unknown.
10.Anil Kumar Rai S/o Ram Rai R/o 193 Channiya Pura Tehsil District Jhansi.
11.Rupali Agrawal W/o Virendra Agrawal R/o Unknown.
12.Mayadevi Agrawal credentials unknown.
13.Birendra Agrawal S/o Ramesh Chnadra Agrawal R/o 81 Nayi Basti.
14.Neha Agrawal credentials unknown.
15.Ritu Agrawal credentials unknown.
16.Sunil Agrawal, credentials unknown.
17.Shivam Developers through Director Deepak Kumar Gupta S/o
Badrinarayan Gupta S/o Badrinarayan Guta 1334/1 Civil Lines Jhansi.
18.Ranauk Vans Builders Through Director Charanjeet Singh Chawla R/o
Sateesh Nagar Jhansi.
…….Respondents.
 The Humble Revisionist, Rajendra Kumar aged about 51 years S/o
Late Bihari Lal 134 Chaudhariyana Jhansi 284302, MOST RESPECTFULLY
SHOWETH as under :-

Criminal Revision Application under section 397 CrPC

– Call Records for Revision
1. That at the outset it is to mention that under section 397 CrPC, the High
Court and Court of Session have been empowered to call for and examine
the records of any proceeding and satisfy oneself as to the:
a. Correctness, legality or propriety (correctness) of any finding,
sentence or order recorded or passed.
b. Regularity of any proceeding of an inferior court.
As per the provisions contained in aforesaid order this Hon’ble Court have
the power to direct the execution of any sentence or suspend or stay the
lower court’s order during the pendency of revision or during the
examination of records.

2. That instant criminal revision is being filed being aggrieved by the disposal of
an application filed by the revisionist wherein application was kept pending for
the reasons unbeknownst and once the TA was filed a judicial impropriety has
been shown as such the matter which was fixed for hearing on 17.06.2023 was
preponed and impugned order was passed. There is much to say in the matter
but for the sake of brevity revisionist is refraining himself by bringing
documents on records as to how the court below has proceeded in the matter
and is filing present revision in the quest of justice.

3. That in the present matter itself an application felling aggrieved a Transfer

application (Annexure No. 1 to this revision) was filed before this Hon’ble
Court with the following averments –
1. That under extreme pathetic situation and in light of rumours around the
applicant and that for the obvious reasons as the present application is
being inordinately delayed and kept pending for the reasons even not known
to the counsel for petitioner; in-spite of the fact that earlier various requests
has been made; but the application is being kept pending for the reasons
unbeknownst. Construction over the land in dispute is at alarming rate;
photographs were also shown to the Ld. Magistrate. This matter was heard
at least on 15 occasions after the report from police was filed on
16.12.2022. Not only were the above various verbal requests made for
disposal of present application. The copy of Application U/s 156(3) CrPC is
 being filed as TA-01, Police Report as TA-02, Written Brief as TA-03 and
Applications for disposal of Application U/s 156(3) as TA -04.
2. That recently in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan
Avam Kalyan Samiti, 2021 SCC On Line SC 667, decided on 6-09-2021, a
2-judge bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that the presiding deity of a
temple is the owner of the land attached to the temple, while priests are only
required to perform rituals and maintain properties of the deity and has
directed that the names of priests be deleted from revenue records of temple
properties.
3. That from the averment in the application a brief of the matter a under was
filed before the court on three times which is being reproduced here as
under-
Matter in Brief
प्रकरण आवेदक की पश्ु तैनी भमि
ू धरी जमीन का है जोकि मौजा डडियापरु ा तहसील व् जिला झाँसी आराजी
सं०-1550,1551, 1552,1554 का है, भमि ू के दस्तावेज (भल ु ेख पर उपलब्ध एवं पलि ु स द्वारा की गयी जांच जोकि
रिकार्ड्स पर है से भी स्पष्ट है कि जमीन मंदिर की है) से स्वतः स्पष्ट है कि अमीन बिहारी जी महाराज एवं घमंडीलाल
(आवेदक के पर दादा जिन्होंने अपनी जमीन से कुछ जमीन मंदिर के नाम कर दी थी) की है, इसमें शक ं र लाल तिवारी
एवं दामोदर आपस में एक दसू रे के विरुद्ध आवेदक की पीठ- पीछे अनेको के स किया जिसमे वीरें द्र राय ने के स लड़ने में
पैसे से मदद की | पहले शंकरलाल तिवारी ने पहले यह बयान किया की जमीन मंदिर की है लेकिन जब वीरे न्द्र राय उसे
करोडो रुपये मिल गए तो उसने दामोदर के पक्ष में बयान कर दिया, और दामोदर ने अपने आपको यह कहते हुए जमीन
करा ली कि उक्त जमीन का वारिश वह स्वयं है | इसके बाद बिरे न्द्र राय ने आपनी कंपनी के नाम पर सम्पर्णु जमीन करा
ली | बिरे न्द्र राय के ऊपर 2008-09 में भ-ू माफिया के तहत कार्यवाही की गयी थी यही नहीं आज भी ब्ल ू बेल स्कूल
राजगढ़ में करोडो की नगर निगम की जमीन प्रशासन की आख ं में धल ू झोककर कब्ज़ा कर रखा है। यही नहीं
जिलाधिकारी महोदय स्वयं ने नकली शराब बेचने के लिए कार्यवाही कर चक ु े है इस प्रकार पर्वु से ही इनका क्रिमिनल
इतिहास रहा है। आवेदक या उसके भाईयों को कही पर भी पक्षकार नहीं बनाया | तहरीर के कथन, धोखाधड़ी,
कूटरचित दस्तावेज, जान से मारने की धमकी देना एवं अन्य सगं ेय आपराध की श्रेणी में आते है | ये सब कथन
विवेचना का विषय है अतः प्राथमिकी पजं ीकृ त कर कार्यवाही करने की कृ पा करे | यदि मझु े कोई जान माल का खतरा
होता है तो इसमें इन सभी की जिम्मेदारी होगी | यही मेरा बयान है |
Laid Down Law by Supreme Court
What is the laid down law by Hon’ble Supreme Court;
माननीय उच्च न्यायलय ने आपने आदेश (ललिता कुमारी बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य , SCC(CR)-2014-1-524,
SCC-2014-2-1) में स्पष्ट रूप से अवधारित किया है कि यदि तहरीर में प्रथम दृष्टया सगं ेय आपराध का होना प्रतीत
होता है तो FIR करना आवश्यक है जिसका सम्बधिं त प्रासगि
ं क भाग इस प्रकार है –
(111.) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if
the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no
preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation
Duty of Magistrate while disposing of application u/s. 156(3) CrPC --- (A)
Whenever an application moved u/s. 156(3) CrPC discloses a cognizable offence, the
Magistrate is bound to direct the police for registration of FIR and investigation
thereof. Magistrate u/s. 156(3) CrPC is not required to go into the factum of
 genuineness of allegations leveled in the application. If the contents of application
disclose a cognizable offence, Magistrate has to pass order for registration of FIR
and investigation thereof. U/s. 156(3) CrPC the Magistrate is empowered only to see
whether any cognizable offence is disclosed. Scrutiny of complaint is limited to that
extent only. 1. Ram Kumar Gautam vs. State of U.P., 2006 (55) ACC 763 (All) 2.
Mobin vs. State of U.P., 2006 (55) ACC 757 (All) 3. Balbeer Kumhar vs. State of
U.P., 2001 UP Nirnay Patrika (Criminal) 172 (All) 4. Ram Pal Singh vs. State of
U.P., 2007 (1) J.Cr.C. 257 (All) 5. Jai Prakash vs. State of U.P., 2007 (1) J Cr.C 141
(All) 6. Smt. Jamna vs. State of U.P., 1996 (33) ACC 699 (All) 7. Ravindra Singh vs.
State of U.P., 2006 (2) JIC 364 (All) 8. Smt. Subhawati Giri vs. State of U.P., 2009 (5)
ALJ (DOC) 176 (All)
वर्तमान प्रकरण आवेदक की पश्ु तैनी जमीन को आपराधिक साजिश के तहत कूटरचित दस्तावेज बनाकर फर्जी तरीके से
जमीन को हड़प लेने का जोकि discloses commission of a cognizable इसलिए माननीय उच्चतम
न्यायलय ने यह स्पष्ट रूप से अवधारित किया है की ऐसे प्रकरण में FIR आवश्यक है | यही नहीं पलि ु स द्वारा की गयी
जांच (रिकार्ड्स पर है ) में भी यह स्पष्ट रूप से लिखा हैकि जमीन मंदिर के नाम थी | विपक्षीगणों ने सम्पर्णू जमीन
धोखाधड़ी करके बिना आवेदक को पक्षकार बनाये आपने नाम पर करा ली है और उसे आनन फानन बेंच रहे है |
यही नहीं माननीय उच्चतम न्यायलय द्वारा प्रतिपादित विधि ब्वयस्था में यह स्पष्ट रूप से कहा हैकि विद्वान
मजिस्ट्रेट को के वल यह देखना है कि प्रथम दृष्टया तहरीर के कथन से सगं ेय (cognizable) आपराध का होना प्रतीत
होता है या नहीं यदि होता है तो FIR mandatory है |
4. That in-spite of clear pleading in respect of laid down law in the
application and also in the written brief the application is pending for no
reasons and the counsel for applicant even helplessly waiting for the
orders to be passed which are required to passed as per laid down law in
the matter of Lalita Kumari (Supra). This was also submitted that
Applicant unconditionally under take if this Hon’ble court have some
reasons he is ready to file a transfer application on his own expenses.
5. That under these circumstances this Hon’ble Court is requested to
transfer the aforesaid case to any magistrate senior to the court below as
the faith in the court in the interest of justice.
Prayer
That in view of above, it is humbly submitted here as under;
i. To transfer the aforesaid case to any Ld. Magistrate so that
Application under section 156(3) of CrPC may please be disposed of
in light of law laid down in the matter of ललिता कुमारी बनाम उत्तर प्रदे श
राज्य , SCC(CR)-2014-1-524, SCC-2014-2-1)
ii. Any other order or direction deem appropriate in present
circumstances may also please be passed.
Date 25.04.2023
(Prerna Verma)
With
(Arvind Kumar)
Advocate.
Counsel(s) for Applicant.
4. That immediately after the copy of transfer application was received by the
court below, the impugned order was backdated to 13.04.2023 and was
passed to defeat he just cause of the revisionist, which is apparent from the
online scheduling/listing of cases a copy of which is being annexed as
Annexure No. 2 to this revision.

5. That in the interest of Brevity the contents of application under section 156(3)
of CrPC are being reiterated for the sake of brevity. As for as the judgments
referred by the ld. Court below cannot be treated as the proper judicial
proceedings in the light of law laid down in the matter of Lalita Kumari
v/s State of UP & Ors SCC-2014-2-1; the relevant portion of
which is being reproduced here as under;-
111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: i) Registration of FIR is
mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is
permissible in such a situation.

6. That once the Hon’ble supreme court barred preliminary enquiry in the matter
of cognizable offences then as to what power can be exercised by the Ld. Court
below for proceeding in the present matter treating it as complaint case.

Prayer
In view of above this Hon’ble Court is requested to –

i. quash the impugned order and to direct the SHO Kotwali for registration
of FIR as the content of complainant show prima-facie cognizable
offences.
Or
quash the impugned order and to remand back to Ld. Court below for
deciding the matter strictly as per law laid down in the matter of Lalita
Kumari v/s State of UP & Ors SCC-2014-2-1.

ii. Any other order or direction as deem appropriate in the present matter
may also please be issued

Date 25.04.2023
(Anupam Verma)
Advocate.
Counsel(s) for Applicant.
 Before the Court of District and Session Judge Jhansi
Criminal Revision No………….. Of 2023
(Arising out of order dated 13.04.2023 passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Jhansi)

In re
Case Crime No. 1987/2022
Rajendra Kumar v/s Damodar Das Agrawal & Ors
Affidavit in support of Criminal Revision.

The Humble Applicant, Rajendra Kumar aged about 51 years S/o Late
Bihari Lal 134 Chaudhariyana Jhansi 284302, MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
as under :-

1. That Criminal Revision under section 397 of CrPC has been filed by
Deponent and as such deponent is well aware about the content of
aforesaid application.

2. That deponent has not concealed any material on record and has not made
any incorrect statement.

3. That present affidavit is being signed by me.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

Verified on this 06th day of May, 2023; that the content of paragraph 01 to
03 are true to my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

I identify the person signed before me.

(Prerna Verma)
Advocate
 Before the Court of District and Session Judge Jhansi
Criminal Revision No………….. Of 2023
(Arising out of order dated 13.04.2023 passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate
Jhansi)

In re
Case Crime No. 1987/2022
Rajendra Kumar v/s Damodar Das Agrawal & Ors

Application for Summoning of Lower Court Records

For the facts and reasons stated in Criminal Revision; it is apparent on the face
of record that applicant the just cause has been defeated and is born out from
the relevant records but even if this Hon’ble Court is of opinion that lower
court records are also required then the same may be summoned from the
office of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the interest of Justice.
Prayer
In view of above it is requested that if this Hon’ble Court is of Opinion that
records of lower court is required then the same may be summoned after
gran of interim relief.

Any other order or direction which is in the interest of justice may also please
be passed.

Dated 06.05.2023 (Anupam Verma)

Place : Jhansi Advocate