Writ petition under Article 227 challenging the withdrawal of proceedings under Section 146 Cr.P.C. and cancellation of attachment order. Court found no apprehension of breach of peace after title determination as it was restored to previous status.
Writ petition dismissed; order dated 18.12.2023 and criminal revision order upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121762
Court No. - 87
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6293 of 2024 Petitioner :- Surya Prakash Singh Sisodiya Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adeel Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Amrish Tiwari,G.A.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Heard Sri Adeel Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amrish Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, Sri R.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By means of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 passed by Session Judge, Mau in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2024 (Surya Prakash Sisodiya Versus State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 18.12.2023 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Ghosi, District-Mau in Case No. 4200 of 2023 (Ramkumar Versus Hawaldar and others), under Section 145 Cr.P.c., Police Station-Ghosi, DistrictMau, whereby Magistrate has recalled the attachment order dated 15.02.1991/29.01.1999 and revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the dispute is still surviving between the petitioner and the contesting respondents (legal heirs of Hawaldar) and there is possibility of breach of peace as the civil suit with regard to the cancellation of sale deed is still pending.
From the perusal of records, it is apparent that on the basis of the report forwarded by the Officer-in-charge of Police Station-Ghosi dated 05.11.1990, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated and a conditional order was passed on 12.12.1990. Thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the disputed plots were attached under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. on 15.02.1991. The said plots fell within the limits of two Villages: 1. Village- Belbhadrapur having Gata No. 551 admeasuring 0.961 Kadi was handed over to one Darshan, son of Pahadi and 2. Village- Piyuvataal having Gata No. 37 was handed over to one Sita Ram.
Subsequently, on 25.11.2005, Diwakar, son of Hawaldar moved an application before the Court concerned stating that the aforesaid dispute was with regard to the property owned by late Vansidhar. The said plots were purchased from him through sale deed by his father Hawaldar and his mother Radhika Devi. Even the registered will deed was executed by late Vansidhar in favour of Radhika Devi.
The proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. were initiated in 1990 at the instance of the father of the petitioner Ram Kunwar. However, late Hawaldar Singh, grand father of respondent No. 3/1 Hemant Singh and 3/2 Himanshu raised an objection that as the civil dispute was pending between the parties, therefore, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. could not be initiated until the title/ownership of the property is determined. Accordingly, on 29.01.1999, the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghosi-Mau attached the disputed property till the title was determined and the matter was consigned to records.
During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, a suit for cancellation of the sale deed was filed before the Consolidation Officer and after it was decided, the names of Hawaldar and Radhika Devi were entered into the revenue records. And after their death, the names of Bhaskar Singh and his brothers Balwant and Diwakar were entered in the revenue records. As there was no apprehension of breach of peace, therefore, the attachment order dated 15.02.1991 was cancelled and the proceedings under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. was withdrawn vide order dated 18.12.2023.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner Surya Prakash Singh Sisodiya, son of late Ram Kuwar Singh preferred a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Mau, District-Mau was dismissed on 04.05.2024 and the order dated 18.12.2023 was upheld.
Upon perusal of records and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it can be safely concluded that as the title of disputed plots were decided in favour of the contesting respondents and their names were entered in the revenue records, therefore, there did not exist any apprehension of breach of peace and the property was restored to its previous status. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghosi-Mau vide order dated 18.12.2023 had rightly cancelled the attachment order and withdrew the proceedings under Section 146 Cr.P.C.
In the backdrop of aforesaid submissions, there is no illegality in
the order impugned nor there is a jurisdictional error. No interference is required. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2024/Shivani
Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the order withdrawing proceedings under Section 146 Cr.P.C. after the title was determined.
Whether the cancellation of the attachment order amounts to a breach of peace.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Surya Prakash Singh Sisodiya
State Of U.P.
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3/1 Hemant Singh
Respondent No. 3/2 Himanshu
Respondent No. 4
Nand Prabha Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
