Dismissed

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2018CRLR/760/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision dismissing challenge to Magistrate's order attaching disputed dwelling property under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. on grounds of breach of peace, holding invalid contentions regarding lack of notice and charging relator that alternative civil suit remedies persist.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; order attaching property under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. upheld.

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 760 of 1993

¶3

Revisionist :- Surendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- A.D. Prabhakar Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.Ga.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

None is present on behalf of revisionist even in the revised list. Heard learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

This revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by Surendar Singh against State of U.P., S.D.M. Sadar, Muzaffarnagar and Om Prakash alias Prakash Singh challenging orders dated 6.3.1993 and 27.4.1993 in Case No. 6/11 of 1993 under Section 145 and 146 Cr.P.C.whereby property in dispute has been attached.

¶7

It is stated in memo of revision that property attached is a dwelling property in which revisionist and his whole family including his brothers, ladies and children are permanently residing for the last ten years as owners of the said disputed house and neither respondent no. 3 nor his family or agents or servants or even neighbours are residing in the said disputed house and they are simply harassing the revisionist for some ulterior motive. Learned Magistrate fixed 2.4.1993 as a date for evidence but no notice as required under section 145(iii) was served and further learned Magistrate fixed 13.4.1993, 15.4.1993 and 27.4.1993 but a day before the last mentioned date i.e. 26.4.1993 itself without service of notice or order upon the revisionist, the Magistrate passed order under section 146 Cr.P.C. attaching the dwelling house of the revisionist which is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶9

It is very settled law that proceedings under Section 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. may be initiated only on the basis of physical possession of the parties at the time in question. On this issue, police has submitted report dated 24.4.1993 declaring that there was possibility of breach of peace over the property in dispute.

¶10

On the point of possession, the Court has given concurrent finding that for maintaining peace it was necessary to attach property in dispute. Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate

¶11

has power to pass order where dispute concerning land or water or boundaries thereof is likely to cause breach of peace.

¶12

The Court has been satisfied with the police report that in order to maintain peace, it was necessary to attach the property and hence passed impugned order. Alternative remedy is available to the revisionist to file a suit before the competent Court and obtain order in his favour, if so advised. The revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed

¶13

It is made clear that this order shall not affect the competent Court in passing fresh order.

¶14

Order Date :- 1.12.2018

¶15

P.P.

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 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

Pappu Alias Santosh Soni Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Vipin @ Shempu Vs State of U.P.

K.N. Agrawal Vs C.J.M. Aligarh and Others

Suraj Pal Singh and Another Vs Raghunandan Prasad and Others

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Orthers