Allowed

J.P.Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2018A482/24520/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 218 and 219 IPC against a judicial officer acting as Settlement Officer. The appeal held that since the revision against the impugned order was pending, initiating criminal proceedings would be premature and an abuse of process absent material showing malafide intent or that proper sanction was obtained.

What did the court decide?

The summoning order dated 22.8.2007 and the impugned proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2550 of 2007 were quashed.

J.P.Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24520 of 2007

¶3

Applicant :- J.P.Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pande,Dinesh Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Kuldeep Kumar,Sunil Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2550 of 2007, Brahamanand vs. J.P. Singh, under Sections 218, 219 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali, District- Bulandshahar, then pending before the C.J.M., Bulandshahar.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was Settlement Officer, Consolidation in district Bulandshahr at the relevant point of time and while acting as appellate authority under the Consolidation of Holdings Act the applicant decided the appeal wherein while passing the order certain references were made which relates to the entry of C.H. Form 23 Part-I. The appeal was partly decided relying upon this entry. A revision against the aforesaid order was also filed which is still pending according to both counsels. Applicant's counsel has also emphasized that while filing the revision no such misconduct as has been alleged in the present complaint, was alleged against the applicant. Contention is that hub of the allegations made against the applicant relates to the conduct of the applicant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty and therefore Section 197 of Code of Criminal

¶8

Procedure is in full application no such sanction as is legally required has been obtained. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate shall be bad in the eyes of law which shall also vitiate the consequent proceedings of the case. Counsel has also tried to argue that the Judges (Protection) Act 1985 (No. 59 of 1985) shall also be relevant in the context of this case. Additionally counsel has also argued that the order which constitutes the basis of filing of the impugned complaint, is already sub-judice and has been challenged in the superior court and unless a positive final finding regarding it comes it will be premature to initiate such kind of criminal proceedings. Argument is that deliberately criminal complexion has been lent to an innocuous judicial act of the applicant. Counsel has tried to argue that in fact if such kind of complaint would be allowed to be initiated against judicial officers probably it shall be impossible for the institutions to function and the officers shall remain under constant coercive pressure and fear of prosecution which will in turn go to very deleteriously effect the fair working of the judicial institutions. Counsel has also tried to place reliance upon Section 49A of Consolidation of Holdings Act and has tried to emphasize that even if for the shake of argument it is presumed that some incorrect order might have been passed by the applicant, it cannot be said that it was passed with malafide intentions or that the order was passed not in good faith. Submission is that for all these reasons continuation of proceedings against the applicant will result in nothing except in the abuse of court's process.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has tried to oppose the submission made by the applicant's counsel and has tried to show that in fact the aforesaid case as mentioned in the order by the applicant did not exist and did not find place in the record room which shows bad intention of the judicial officer and he

¶10

must face consequences. It was sought to be argued that it is not correct to say that a complaint cannot be brought against the applicant unless the revision is finally decided. Counsel has further tried to argue that if the orders have been passed dishonestly and deliberately none of the aforesaid sections referred to by the applicant's counsel would come to his assistance.

¶11

Perused the record in the light of rival submissions made at the bar.

¶12

Without going into the great details of this case suffice it to observe that after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case this Court finds substance in the submissions made by the applicant's counsel. A query was specifically raised by the Court to the counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 whether the revision against the initial order which constitutes the basis of filing the impugned complaint has been decided or not, on this the counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has been fair enough to concede that the revision is still subjudice and the matter is still pending. In such situation when already a regular statutory course is being pursued raising objection against the validity or legitimacy of a particular order, rushing to file a complaint by the complainant does not appear to be an act which may be countenanced with by this Court which clearly appears to be a premature hasty overreaction. Apart from this, this Court has also serious doubts about the maintainability of the summoning order in the light of absence of proper sanction because there does not appear to be any doubt that the officer has dishonestly acted in the capacity of judicial officer while passing of the aforesaid order. This Court does not see any such material on record which may persuade to hold that the order was passed with malafide intention or was

¶13

not passed with good faith. It goes without saying that passing of an incorrect order or an irregular order or even an improper order is not an unseen eventuality. In fact, the institution of superior court is there only to check the validity or incorrectness or irregular nature of the order and the propriety of the proceedings. Everyday the orders passed by one court are set aside by the higher court but that order cannot give rise presumption that incorrect orders were passed in favour of other side with dishonest intention or motive would be attributable to such officer simply because some incorrect order was passed. At any rate, that particular order is already under challenge before the superior court who is seized with the matter, the summoning of the applicant in the present case appears to be flawed and not the right decision. This Court feels that the continuation of such kind of criminal proceedings against the applicant will result in nothing except an abuse of court's process.

¶14

The application is allowed therefore.

¶15

The summoning order dated 22.8.2007 and the impugned proceedings of the aforesaid case stand quashed.

¶16

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court concerned forthwith.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.10.2018 Naresh

J.P.Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.P.Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Makbool Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raman Malhotra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mashooq and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Samant Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Lakhan Singh Bhadauriya and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Subhash Chand and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another