Dismissed

Payas Jain and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others

Allahabad HC9 May 2018A482/6782/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous recall application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that an earlier interim order obtaining the nature of the present application was procured by concealing material evidence, specifically an earlier order from June 2017. Consequently, the recall application was allowed, the earlier interim order was recalled, and the primary Section 482

What did the court decide?

Recall application allowed; Impugned order dated 27.02.2018 recalled; Section 482 Cr.P.C. application dismissed.

Payas Jain and another Vs State of U.P. and 3 others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6782 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Payas Jain And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar,Pramod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Criminal Misc. Recall Application No. Nil of 2018

¶6

On 27.2.2018 the below quoted order was passed:-

¶7

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 03.03.2017 passed in Case No. 1 of 2017, under Section 145 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Baraut, District- Baghpat as well as order dated 10.03.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2017 by the Sessions Judge, Baghpat.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the opposite parties had instituted a civil suit for declaration of their right in which a report has been called from the Amin with regard to possession. According to the report submitted by the Amin in those proceeding the applicants were in possession. Concealing all these facts, the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were instituted by the opposite parties, wherein on basis an order of attachment has been passed.

¶10

Matter requires consideration.

¶11

Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.

¶12

Issue notice to opposite party no.2 by registered post AD at the address given in the application fixing 20.03.2018.

¶13

Steps be taken within one week.

¶14

Opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶15

List on the date so fixed.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned orders dated 03.03.2017 and 10.03.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in case no. 1 of 2017 (Smt. Sudha Jain Vs. Neeraj Jain) shall remain stayed"

¶17

Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 filed a recall application on which following order was passed on 26.4.2018.

¶18

"List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the applicants to contest the recall application filed by the opposite party no.2, which is listed today.

¶19

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 states that the applicants have obtained the order dated 27.02.2018 by concealing the material evidence

¶20

Put up on 30.04.2018, showing the name of Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla as counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶21

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 may give an advance notice to learned counsel for the applicants about this order by tomorrow."

¶22

Thereafter, the matter was heard on 30.4.2018. After advancing argument at some length, learned counsel for the applicant pleaded for time to ascertain whether the applicant had knowledge of the earlier order passed by this Court on 16.6.2017 in 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 18658 of 2017.

¶23

In such circumstance, the matter had been directed to be listed today.

¶24

Today, learned counsel for the applicant has sent his illness slip, which is being dishonoured in view of the order passed earlier.

¶25

Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record a document and record of proceeding before the S.D.M. Therefrom, it is seen that the applicant had filed his Vakalatnama annexed at page 9 wherein the applicant executed it as a party. It is seen that the earlier order passed by this Court on 16.6.2017 had been filed in the proceeding before the S.D.M. on 11.7.2017. A certified copy of the application has also been brought on record. The said fact has also been noted in the order sheet of the S.D.M.

¶26

The order dated 16.6.2017 passed in 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 18658 of 2017 reads as under:-

¶27

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶28

The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to direct the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to execute the order dated 30.03.2017 in Case No. 1 of 2017, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. P.S. Baraut, Baghpat.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he was in possession over the property in question and that after attachment of the same on 3 March 2017 passed by the S.D.M., Baraut in case No. 1 of 2017 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the same has been illegally given over to the opposite party No. 6 on 16.03.2017.

¶30

On the other hand, Mr. Surya Bhan Singh, appeared on behalf of the respondent No.6 states that the said opposite party is in possession over the said property, that it is continuing under attachment of the property.

¶31

Be that as it may, in view of the above fact that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., is summary in nature no useful purpose be served in keeping this application pending for longer period of time, as such, the instant application is disposed of with a direction that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M. Baraut shall be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a time of 3 months from today.

¶32

Both the parties, applicant and opposite party No. 6 in this case shall maintain status quo with regard to the property.

¶33

Needless to say that while deciding the pending applications, S.D.M. concerned will consider whether the attachment order has been violated by any of the parties."

¶34

It does appear that the opposite party no.2 was well aware of the earlier order and the order dated 27.2.2018 has been obtained by practising concealment. The order 27.2.2018 is recalled.

¶35

The application is lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶36

Order Date :- 9.5.2018 Mini

Payas Jain and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Payas Jain and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others

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

Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Harish Chandra Arora and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt Meena Shukla Vs State of Up and Another

Dharmpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maya Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jatin Vs State of Up and Another