Allowed

Yameen v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024A227/5639/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 227 quashing a 2024 order passed by a Special Judge POCSO Act that dismissed an old criminal revision related to property attachment. The Court set aside the proceeding and quashed the criminal case as the dispute was civil in nature between parties in possession.

What did the court decide?

The order of 16.03.2024 was set aside, and the entire proceeding from Case No. 02 of 2006 was quashed and set-aside.

Yameen vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:192697

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5639 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Yameen Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Utpal Chatterji Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohd. Naushad Ahmad Khan

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Utpal Chatterji, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mohd. Naushad Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 5 and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant petitioner has been preferred for challenging order dated 16.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No 3/Additional District and Session Judge, Meerut while entertaining Criminal Revision preferred at the behest of the petitioner as Criminal Revision No. 97 of 2006 (Yameen vs. Gulam and Others).

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being aggrieved with the order dated 10.02.2006 through which property in question was directed to be attached in proceeding under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C., at the admission stage when the criminal revision preferred at the behest of the petitioner has been admitted vide order dated 03.03.2006, the same was challenged by the private respondents by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12436 of 2006 (Gulam Fariduddin and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others) and the same was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 05.04.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶9

Sri Utpal Chatterji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, Criminal Revision No. 97 of 2006 was pending since order dated 16.03.2024 which impugned the present petition and there was hardly any pursuance made at the behest of either of the parties, lastly when the matter arising between the parties attained the finality almost in shape of having possession over their disputed portions and if any dispute is there, a civil suit is also pending for final adjudication between the parties.

¶10

It has been indicated by learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶11

once the matter was listed on 16.03.2024 before the learned revisional court, specific stand has been taken up by the petitioner with a request to dismiss the revision as withdrawn, but the same was decided by way of arriving over conclusion with certain determination dismissing the same even without having any records from the lower court.

¶12

Precise arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 16.03.2024 is bad in the eye of law on below mentioned grounds:-

¶13

(i) The matter arising out of proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. has been taken up by the learned revisional authority as a regular case arising out of original jurisdiction and the criminal revision has been preferred at the behest of the petitioner, has been taken in continuance of the orders passed by the original jurisdiction.

¶14

(ii) Order of the learned revisional court is without considering the records since the same were never ever summoned from the court below.

¶15

(iii) Attraction of Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. is dependent upon the dispute between the parties which may culminated into breach of peace but the matter of 2006 cannot be determined and adjudicated in the year 2024 on the basis of the report whatsoever submitted by concerned authority way back in the year 2005.

¶16

(iv) On the settled principle of practice and procedure which has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court also that the petitioner is altogether master of his own petition and he has the right to withdraw the same at any stage but in the instant matter in spite of specific prayer for dismissal as withdrawn, learned revisional court entered into facts of the matter and decided the same on merits.

¶17

Per contra, Mohd. Naushad Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5 submits that although their petition arising out of admission of the criminal revision preferred at the behest of the petitioner, dismissed in the year 2022 and thereafter the same order was never been put to challenge before the higher court. It is also admitted at the behest of the private respondents that both the parties are in possession over their respective portion of property in dispute so far as final adjudication is concerned, a civil suit is still pending to be finally adjudicated by the concerned Civil Judge, Meerut.

¶18

After having rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that learned revisional court decided the Criminal Revision No. 97 of 2006 presuming as a matter of regular criminal revision arising out of certain criminal proceedings, wherein order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate has been put under challenge, no consideration has been given in respect of Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. for which the essential ingredients has to be meet out at the time of passing orders while deciding the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner.

¶19

It is also apparent from the records that no record from the lower court has ever been in receipt of learned revisional court and as such the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be justified that specifically over the issue that learned revisional court, first has to ascertain whether there is any necessity for proceeding that the criminal revision, wherein the revisionist himself is praying to withdraw the same, matter initiated out of proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C., wherein order of attachment has been passed back in the year 2006 was pending for so long only on the ground of having no interest to either of the parties and as per the practice and procedure, it is the revisionist himself prayed to withdraw the criminal revision preferred at the behest of the petitioner but rather to allow the same, has dismissed as withdrawn the same, has been heard and passed the orders on merits by way of interfering in the facts which are not substantiated with the proper documents in shape of records from learned lower court.

¶20

In view of the aforementioned discussions and the fact involved in the matter, the writ petition is allowed . The order dated 16.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No 3/Additional District and Session Judge, Meerut is hereby setaside and once it is the joint statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties that they are already possessed over the property in dispute in respect of their own possession and rest of the factual/legal issue is still pending to be adjudicated by the learned Civil Court, the entire proceedings arising out of Case No. 02 of 2006 (State vs. Gulam Fariduddin and Others) are hereby quashed and set-aside.

¶21

However, it is made clear that the observation as made above will have no effect over the original suit which is pending to be adjudicated finally between the parties.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.12.2024 #Vik/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yameen v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yameen v. State of U.P. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arif and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhinesh Pratap Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonu vs State of U.P. and Another

Radha Krishna Dixit vs State of Up and Another

Ashwani vs State of Up and Another

Sanjay Rastogi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another