Disposed

Kailash Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2024A482/1651/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for quashing a preliminary order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding a land dispute was dismissed. The Court held that it has no jurisdiction to exercise inherent powers before the competent Executive Magistrate decides the objections. It directed the Magistrate to dispose of the matter within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Police Commissioner/Executive Magistrate, Lucknow to take a final decision on objections expeditiously within 2 months.

Kailash Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16433

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1651 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kailash Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Pandey,Dharmendra Singh,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

1. Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Sri Anant Kumar Singh, earned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶8

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. filed by the Police Commissioner/Executive Magistrate South, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow in Case No.28 of 2022 under Section 148 Cr.P.C. on 13.09.2022.

¶9

3. Impugned order states that the inspector in-charge has submitted a report stating that there is a dispute regarding possession of the land bearing Gata No.2393 situated in a village Narapatkheda between the parties. Although the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, Lucknow passed an injunction order, the parties are repetitively violating the order and they are trying to take possession of the land in dispute.

¶10

4. The parties have been challaned under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. to maintain peace. There was animosity and an apprehension of breach of peace by the parties regarding possession of the land in dispute. Therefore, it was necessary to initiate proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. For the aforesaid reason, the Executive Magistrate directed the parties to maintain peace and status quo and to appear before him on 27.09.2022 to present their respective case.

¶11

5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the parties had been directed to maintain peace and not to alter status of the property till the next date, which was fixed merely after two weeks.

¶12

6. Section 145(5) Cr.P.C. provides that the person required to attend the proceedings or any other interested person may show that no dispute exists as alleged in the preliminary order and thereupon the Magistrate shall cancel his order.

¶13

7. The applicants have already filed their objections against the preliminary order, which are pending consideration of the Magistrate. In these circumstances, there is no occasion for this Court to exercise its inherent power in respect of the proceedings, which are yet to be decided finally and which are pending before the competent authority i.e. Police Commissioner/Executive Magistrate South, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow.

¶14

8. Accordingly, the application is disposed of with a direction to Police Commissioner/Executive Magistrate South, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow to take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law after taking into consideration the objections filed by the applicants and other parties, if any, expeditiously, say within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt a certified copy of this order.

¶15

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 23.2.2024 prateek

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kailash Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 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

Piyush Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vivek Pal, Thru. Father Om Prakash Pal Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Seema Jaiswaal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Naseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kailash Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Sajjad Hasan Masood Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and 2 Others