Disposed

Mohammad Saleem v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2022A227/7867/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition quashing an impugned order. The court directed the City Magistrate to consider the police report on disputed possession or summon a fresh report while passing a fresh order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to City Magistrate Aligarh to issue fresh order considering SHO report on possession.

Mohammad Saleem Vs State of U.P. and Another — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7867 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohammad Saleem Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anwar Hussain Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.

¶6

By the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the revisional court the order dated 23.10.2020 passed by the City Magistrate, Aligarh under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. has been set aside.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 16.09.2021 the revisional court has come to the conclusion that the possession of shop is not disputed so the findings of the revisional court are misleading and the relief of setting aside the order dated 16.09.2021 is sought.

¶8

From the perusal of the order dated 16.09.2021 it is clear that the order dated 23.10.2020 passed by the City Magistrate, Aligarh has been quashed whereby the City Magistrate, Aligarh had ordered for attachment of the disputed property under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C.

¶9

It is argued by the learned A.G.A. that though, the order under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. of the City Magistrate dated 23.10.2020 has been set aside by the revisional court but the lower court has to pass a fresh order under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. now so no purpose will be served if the petition is allowed.

¶10

It is true that the file has been remanded back by the order of revisional court to decide the matter afresh by the City Magistrate, Aligarh. However, there is one finding in the judgement that the possession is not disputed between the parties but as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the possession is very much disputed in the matter and that is why the proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. took place.

¶11

If we go through the police report dated 19.10.2020 on the basis of which the order under Section 146 Cr.P.C. was passed by the City Magistrate, in this report, it is mentioned that both the parties are claiming their possession over the shop in dispute so the parties are bounded by Section 107 Cr.P.C.

¶12

It shows that the possession of the shop is very much in dispute.

¶13

The petition is disposed of with the finding that while passing fresh order under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. the City Magistrate, Aligarh shall keep in mind the report dated 19.10.2020 of the S.H.O. concerned or if he needs, will summon a fresh report regarding possession/dispute of the parties on the record.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.3.2022 gp

¶15

Digitally signed by GANESH PRAKASH Date: 2022.03.08 11:22:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Saleem v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Saleem v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Anil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarnath Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Akil Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Krishna Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others