Dismissed

Bindpal Singh and Another v. State of U P and 8 Others

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2023CRLP/2029/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition under Art. 226 challenging an order under S. 145 Cr.P.C. The Court held that since an alternative remedy of filing a criminal revision before the Sessions Court was available, the writ petition could not be entertained at this stage, directing the petitioner to file the revision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners directed to file a criminal revision before the Court of Sessions.

Bindpal Singh and Another Vs State of U P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160146

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2029 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Bindpal Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Ram Yadav,Jai Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shivam Agarwal

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Shivam Agarwal, learned counsel for respondents as well as learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶7

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been moved by the petitioners with following prayers:

¶8

I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 27.7.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Court No. 7, Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) in Criminal Revision No. 160 of 2019 (Sanjay Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) and consequential order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Ghatampur, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 08 of 2012, under Section 145, 146 Cr.P.C.

¶9

II. Issue a writ order or direction to the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents for restoring the possession of the petitioners as early as possible.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated before the learned S.D.M. which was challenged before the revisional court which set aside the order vide order dated 27.7.2022 and matter was remanded to the learned S.D.M. to decide the matter afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to the revisionists. In pursuance to that order, learned S.D.M. again passed the order dated 10.1.2023 but no opportunity of hearing was given to the opposite party, therefore, request to set aside the order dated 27.7.2022 and 10.1.2023.

¶11

Learned counsel for respondents as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case,

¶12

though revisional court did not mention in the operative portion of the order to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners also but while passing the order, learned S.D.M. gave an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and then passed the order. The order passed by the learned S.D.M. dated 10.1.2023 itself shows that both the parties were given an opportunity of hearing. Further contended by learned counsel for the respondents that criminal revision is maintainable before the learned court of Sessions against order passed by the learned S.D.M. on 10.1.2023 as an alternative remedy to this but petition has been filed by the petitioners without taking recourse of alternative remedy though he may file revision before the learned Court of Sessions.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, it appears that the revisional court passed the order as aforesaid on 27.7.2022 while setting aside the order passed by learned S.D.M. on 24.10.2019 directing him to pass the order afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionists. In pursuance to that learned S.D.M. passed the order dated 10.1.2023 which shows that both the parties were given an opportunity of hearing as mentioned in the order, even though learned counsel for petitioner submits that no opportunity was given to them for hearing but this fact has been mentioned in the order passed by learned S.D.M.

¶14

In my considered opinion, if there is any grievance to the petitioners with the order passed by the learned S.D.M. on 10.1.2023 in pursuance to the order of the revisional court, they may file revision against the order before the learned court of Sessions while raising their objection which will be decided by the learned revisional court. When there is alternative remedy available to the petitioners to file the revision before the learned court of Sessions, this writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage.

¶15

Thus, this writ petition is disposed of finally with direction to the petitioners to file a criminal revision before the learned court of Sessions which will be entertained by condoning the delay in view of pendency of this writ petition before this Court.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.8.2023 A. Singh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bindpal Singh and Another v. State of U P and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindpal Singh and Another 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

Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Diwakar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others