Dismissed

Lalit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022A227/10713/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a revisional court order that set aside a summoning order in a fraud case. The bench held that the revisional court correctly identified withheld material facts and found no infirmity in its order, leaving no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Article 227 is dismissed; the impugned order of the revisional court is affirmed.

Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10713 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

It is submitted on behalf for the petitioner that respondents no.2 to 8 were summoned in Complaint Case No.306 of 2020, (Lalit Kumar vs. Mithlesh Devi and others) under Sections 420 and 120-B I.P.C. on the basis of evidence given by the complainant alleging that a fraudulent sale deed of the agricultural land belonging to Lalit Kumar, the complainant, was executed by the respondents and they were summoned by the trial court however the revisional court set aside the summoning order by ignoring the documentary and oral evidence given under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; the name of the petitioner is still recorded in the revenue record as owner of the disputed land; sale deed was executed by obtaining his signature on plain papers; sale deed was without sale consideration; The revisional court without good ground set aside the summoning order. Therefore, the order of revisional court is liable to be set aside and that petitioner is left with no remedy except moving this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶7

I went through the orders passed by the trial court and also the order of the revisional court which is under challenge in this petition. Some facts are being mentioned in order to appreciate the matter in controversy. The complainant Lalit Kumar filed a complaint with the allegation that his agricultural land plot no.21, area 0.420 hectare was sold by respondent no.2 to respondent no.3 by a registered sale deed dated 06.05.2019. Thereafter that plot was sold by respondent no.3 to respondent no.6 by another registered sale deed dated 22.06.2019, though name of the complainant is still recorded in the revenue papers as bhumidhar. Admittedly other respondents were marginal witnesses of the first and the second sale deeds. When this matter came before the revisional court the revisionist/the present respondents lay bare the real facts disclosing that a registered sale deed dated 22.06.2016 existed in favor of seller (respondent no.2) executed by the complainant himself and to convolute the matters and to misled the court, his wife filed an objection against the mutation proceedings. The mutation of names in favour of respondents could not be done because of collusive objection filed by Smt. Prabhawati, wife of the complainant against the mutation proceedings. The revisional court took notice of the facts which were revealed by the papers filed on behalf the revisionsit and which could not be countered by the respondentcomplainant. The revisional court rightly noticed that some of the very material facts and circumstances were deliberately withheld by the complainant. The revisional court found that a civil case for cancellation of the sale deed was already filed and was being prosecuted by the complainant. Though it is not said in so many words but apparently the revisional court was of the view that the trial court is not expected to pass

¶8

summoning order in mechanical manner and take the statements on its face value. No doubt that the trial court is duty bound to apply mind before passing judicial order. Then there was the turn of revisional court to set aside if any illegality, irregularity or impropriety was found therein. And it did the same. The machinery of the court and the procedure of law cannot be allowed to be used as a tool in the hands of professional litigants, out to harass the innocent people for vested interest Order passed by the revisional court suffers from no infirmity in view of the material placed before it. I do not find any ground to interfere in exercise of supervisory powers exercisable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶9

Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶10

Order Date :- 1.12.2022

¶11

Asha

¶12

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.12.03 09:21:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lalit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Sevaram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sheepu @ Neelesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

X- Minor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor through Guardian and Mother Smt Sushila Devi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Mr. Ex (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others