Allowed

Tirath Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2019CRLR/1653/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. allowed a criminal revision filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against a Sessions Judge's order quashing a Magistrate's possession order. The Court held the Magistrate correctly relied on Police and Tehsildar reports in a summary possession proceeding, holding the revisionist petitioner's possession and dismissing the challenge based on the respondent's sworn statement

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision No. 122 of 1990 allowed; order dated 10.09.1990 of the Revisional Court set aside; Magistrate's order dated 06.02.1990 confirmed.

Tirath Singh Vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1653 of 1990 Revisionist :- Tirath Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- L.S. Srivastava, I. K. Chaturvedi, Lalji Sahai,

¶3

Santosh Singh Sudist Counsel for Opposite Party :- R.N. Singh, A.G.A., Ram Niwas Singh,

¶4

V. K. Chandel

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri I. K. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Singh, learned counsel for revisionist and Sri V. K. Chandel, learned counsel for respondent.

¶7

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by judgment and order dated 10.09.1990 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ghajipur in Criminal Revision No.122 of 1990 quashing the judgment dated 16.02.1990 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Zaminia, District-Ghajipur in Criminal Case No.30/5 under Section 145 Cr.P.C..

¶8

Magistrate closed proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. after recording findings on the basis of Police report and Tehsildar report that disputed property was in possession of opposite party (revisionist before this Court) and passed order on 16.02.1990 but aforesaid order was challenged before Revisional Court i.e. Sri Sanwal Singh, 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Ghajipur who has allowed Criminal Revision No.122 of 1990 holding that Magistrate committed jurisdictional error by relying on Police report and Tehsildar report, which could not have been treated as an evidence contradictory to statement on oath given by respondent (revisionist before this Court) about his possession.

¶9

Learned Senior Counsel before this Court contended that Revisional Court manifestly erred by holding that Police report and Tehsildar report could not have been relied upon by Magistrate.

¶10

-2-

¶11

I also find substance in above submission. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated by Magistrate, when he is satisfied with investigation made by a police officer or have information that it was likely to cause breach of peace between parties concerning the land in dispute. After giving notice, police report and tehsildar report was submitted to Magistrate verifying that respondent (revisionist before this Court) was in possession of the land in dispute.

¶12

If that be so, learned Revisional Court has committed manifest error in holding that instead of considering two reports namely Police report and Tehsildar report, concerned Magistrate should have treated statement of complainant (respondent before this Court) given on oath that he was in possession ignoring the reports of independent authorities namely, Police and Tehsildar verifying possession of respondent (revisionist before this Court) over property in dispute. Morever, it is a summary proceeding and if any final verdict is required with regard to the possession or title, remedy lies to respective parties before Civil Court.

¶13

In my view Magistrate's order was founded on valid evidence and learned Revisional Court committed manifest error in taking a view otherwise.

¶14

In view thereof, Revisional order dated 10.09.1990 passed by Revisional Court i.e. First Additional Sessions Judge, Ghajipur in Criminal Revision No.122 of 1990 is hereby set aside and order dated 06.02.1990 passed by Magistrate is confirmed and maintained.

¶15

This criminal revision, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶16

Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.

¶17

Order Date : 19.07.2019 Manish Himwan

¶18

Court No. - 34

¶19

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1653 of 1990 Revisionist :- Tirath Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- L.S. Srivastava,I.K. Chaturvedi,Lalji Sahai Srivastava,Santosh Singh Sudist Counsel for Opposite Party :- R.N. Singh,A.G.A.,Ram Niwas Singh,V.K. Chandel

¶20

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶21

Re : Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.311290 of 2015

¶22

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing substitution application.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

Cause shown is sufficient.

¶25

Delay is hereby condoned.

¶26

Application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶27

Re : Crl. Misc. Substitution Application No.311292 of 2015

¶28

Heard.

¶29

Allowed.

¶30

Let substitution be carried out during course of the day.

¶31

Order Date : 19.07.2019

¶32

Manish Himwan

Tirath Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirath Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Ram Nath Vs State and Others

P.M. and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sughar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.

C.P. Pandey Vs State of U.P.and Others

Shiv Sagar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.