Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
(2.) The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Sultanpur in Criminal Revision No.145/2014 (Prakash Veer vs. State of U.P.) and also set aside the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No.1669/2012 (State vs. Prakash Veer) Crime No.1670/2011, under Sections 457/380 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the present application has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Additional Session Judge Court No.3, Sultanpur, whereby the Criminal Revision No.145/2014 filed by the applicant/petitioner has been rejected without perusing the material evidence and without verifying the correctness, propriety and illegality of the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.16, Sultanpur. He further contended that vide order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.16, Sultanpur whereby the discharge application of the applicant/petitioner has been rejected without considering the point that there is no evidence against the applicant/petitioner, in spite of this the discharge application of the applicant/petitioner has been rejected. As such the orders impugned are totally illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper. It is contended that in the house of the applicant/petitioner, one Dev Narayan i.e. opposite party no.2 was a tenant from last five years, and doing the business of cloth, but the said shop was not running properly, due to that reason Dev Narayan, in the month of March-April executed a compromise with the applicant/petitioner and vacated the shop after taking Rs.25,000/- from the applicant/petitioner. Thereafter, the applicant/petitioner moved an application before the Executive Officer/ Chairman Nagar Palika Parishad, Sultanpur for removing the name of opposite party no.2 from the tenant column. It is further contended that on the direction of the Executive Officer, an inquiry was made and the report was submitted by the inquiry officer, in which it was stated that after inspection, it was found that the opposite party no.2 has vacated the shop. The name of opposite party no.2 has been removed from the column of the tenant and the name of the applicant/petitioner has been recorded.;