Petitioner challenged quashing of notice under Section 441 IPC for alleged land encroachment. Court found insufficient grounds to quash, dismissing the writ petition while preserving right to challenge future F.I.R.
Impugned notice not quashed; petitioner allowed to challenge future F.I.R. if lodged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20129 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Babu Yadav
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Sri Jai Narain, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the notice dated 12.2.2019 issued by the respondent no. 5 and further to restrain the respondents not to dis-possess the petitioner from the land in dispute in any manner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner resides since period of ancestor since last 50 years and a notice has been issued by the respondent no. 5 which the law cannot be permitted issue notice to the petitioner under section 441 I.P.C. even the remedy has been available before him as per Revenue Act, hence the entire proceeding initiated by the respondent no. 5 is in wrong manner and that is liable to be set-aside by this Court. If the encroachment has been made by the petitioner, so there is remedy available to proceeding under section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. ACT AND SECTION 67-A OF U.P. Revenue Court Act, but material illegality has been caused to issue notice by the respondent no. 5 for lodging the first information report which has no power to Lekhpal, hence the entire proceeding has been vitiated by law and the respondents concern given threatening to the petitioner to remove the encroachment within a period of ten days is completely unjust, improper and against the eyes of law, hence the notice issued under section 441 I.P.C. is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any good ground to quash the impugned notice.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
However, if any F.I.R. is lodged against the petitioner under section 447 I.P.C., he will be at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 1.8.2019 Shiraz
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal notice issued under Section 441 IPC for alleged encroachment is liable to be quashed when revenue remedies exist.
Whether Lekhpal has power to issue notice to lodge F.I.R. for encroachment.
Whether threat to dispossess petitioner within ten days violates law.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Ashok Kumar Pandey
State Of U.P.
Respondent No. 5
Ramesh Sinha
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
