Dismissed

Amar Deep Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2021CRLP/8269/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioners sought an injunction against relatives for ousting them from their ancestral house and a direction for police protection. The court held that civil injunctions cannot be granted in criminal writ petitions and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking injunction and police protection was dismissed.

Amar Deep Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8269 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Amar Deep Sharma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person,In Person Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amar Deep Sharma (Petitioner No.1) in person and Sri A.K. Sand, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed, praying for the following reliefs:-

¶7

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the state police to provide police protection to both petitioner nos. 1 and 2 (In person), in their ancestral house No. 128/208 K, Block Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh, police Station Noubasta, District Kanpur Nagar in U.P against the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 in the interest of justice.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, U.P. to decide the pending representation dated 30.07.2020 given by petitioner no.1 for lawful entry of the both petitioners in their ancestral house No. 128/208 K, Block Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh, Police Station Noubasta, District Kanpur Nagar pending before the S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar within stipulated period.

¶9

Petitioners submit that House No. 128/208 K, Block Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar is an ancestral house in which petitioners have a share by birth, but the petitioners were ousted from the said house on 27.09.2017 by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and, thereafter, the petitioners are not being allowed to enter into the house. They, therefore, submit that respondent nos. 2 and 3 be restrained from interfering with the entry and possession of the petitioners in the house in question.

¶10

In support of their submission, petitioners have relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.12.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3822 of 2020 ( Smt. S Vanitha Versus The deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors ) and submit that direction as issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, may also be issued in favour of the petitioners.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. submitted that the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted in criminal writ petition. He also submitted that judgment being relied by the petitioners has no application on the facts of the present case. He further submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

¶12

We have carefully considered the submissions of petitioners and learned A.G.A.

¶13

Petitioners want an injunction against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the present criminal misc. writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India.

¶14

We are of the view that an injunction of civil nature cannot be granted in a criminal misc. writ petition.

¶15

So far as the judgment in the case of Smt. S. Vanitha (supra) relied by the petitioners is concerned, we find that the said case arose from the decree of the eviction under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

After we dictated this order in open court, petitioners submit that their application under Domestic Violence Act is pending before the ACMM-III, Kanpur Nagar being Case No. 666 of 2018 (Vandana Sharma Versus Uma Sharma), which may be directed to be decided within a time bound period.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. submits that under Section 12 (5) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Magistrate is required to decide the application within 60 days from the date of its first hearing and, therefore, the petitioners may approach the concerned Magistrate and place before him the provision so as to get the case decided within the stipulated period.

¶18

Be that as it may, since the relief in regard to the above, has not been sought in the present writ petition, therefore, we do not find it appropriate to issue any direction. Therefore, we leave it open for the petitioners to approach the court concerned for disposal of the alleged application filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is expected that if the petitioners approach the concerned Magistrate, he shall make endeavour to decide the application of the petitioners, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if any, in accordance with law within the period prescribed.

¶19

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.9.2021 T.S.

Amar Deep Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Deep Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Julka and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Taufiq Ahmad @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Nisha Alias Uzma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neelam Bagga and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Vijma @ Barkha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar Saroj Vs State of U P and 3 Others