Dismissed

Om Singh v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2022A227/613/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition under Article 227, the court dismissed the petitioner's prayers to set aside orders passed by the SDM and Sessions Judge under Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding sugarcane income recovery, holding the lower court orders were well-reasoned and legal.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of orders dated 18.03.2020 and 2.11.2021 refused; recovery of Rs. 1,55,700/- not restrained.

Om Singh Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 613 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Om Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyadarshi Tripathi,Shobh Nath Pandey,Shrawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramesh Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Priyadarshi Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Sudhir Kumar Shukla holding brief of Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the the respondents No. 4 to 9 and perused the record.

¶6

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶7

I. To set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 which is passed by the respondent No. 3 (Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Badaut, District Baghpat) in Case No. 685 of 2017 (Computer Case No. T20171188004685), (Surendra Vs. Om Prakash), under section 145/146 Cr.P.C. and impugned order dated 2.11.2021 which is passed by respondent no. 2 (Learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat, District Baghpat) in Revision No. 35 of 2021 (Om Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others),

¶8

II. To direct the respondents to not recover the amount Ra. 1,55,700/(One Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Seven Hundred) from the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition, because the recovery citation had already been issued by the Tehsildar-Badaut, District Baghpat on 7.11.2020.

¶9

III to issue any other direction, as this court may so desires.

¶10

IV. Award cost of petition to the petitioner.

¶11

From the perusal of the record it transpires that on 1.1.2019 petitioner filed an application before the S.D.M. Badaut in the proceeding of section 145 Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 18.3.2020, the S.D.M. concerned has rejected the application of the petitioner and directed the custodian for depositing the Rs. 1,55,700/- before the court relating to the income of the sugarcane and also directed the S.H.O. Chhaprauli to inform the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,55,700/- vide letter dated 21.09.2020. Being aggrieved the order dated 18.03.2020, the petitioner filed a revision before learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat on 5.10.2020 along with stay application as well as application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. During pendency of the revision the S.D.M. concerned has also issued the recovery

¶12

warrant against the petitioner on 14.10.2020. Thereafter the learned District Judge, Baghpat has also dismissed the revision vide order dated 2.11.2021.

¶13

Considering all the facts, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat, it appears that the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat is well discussed and reasoned order and there is no illegality in the order dated 2.11.2021, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned orders dated 18,03.2019 as well as 2.11.2021 are hereby refused.

¶14

The revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.4.2022 RPD

¶16

Digitally signed by RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI Date: 2022.04.07 11:31:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Singh v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Singh v. State of U.P. and 8 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

Hari Shankar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and Others

Tabassum Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Shraddha Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahim Uddin @ Shanoo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehraj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Sharan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another