Dismissed

Swami Nath Patwa v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2024A482/3601/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of orders rejecting a Section 156(3) CPC application. The Court held the dispute regarding ancestral land was primarily civil in nature between real brothers with a pending civil suit, and no cognizable offence was prima facie made out.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; impugned orders dated 12.04.2022 and 15.03.2024 upheld.

Swami Nath Patwa vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30933

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3601 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Swami Nath Patwa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 4 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Saryu Prasad Tiwari

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Hariom Divedi,Yogesh Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Sri Yogesh Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶9

Under challenge in this petition is the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fast-I / J.M., Ambedkar Nagar whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Against that a revision was filed by the petitioner that too has been rejected vide order dated 15.03.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast-II), Ambedkar Nagar.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land in dispute is an ancestral land and fraudulently the same has been usurped by the respondent No.2 through a forged sale deed by which the said land has been sold to the respondent No.2. He has drawn attention of the court towards two legal notices sent to the applicant by the respondent No.2 and also the electricity connection etc. to show that he is in possession of the plot in question.

¶11

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that earlier land belong to a scheduled caste person who after declaration under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") from the competent authority i.e. District Magistrate has sold

¶12

the same to the respondent No.2. Applicant has already filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed which is pending before the civil court. The dispute primarily civil in nature and only to exert pressure purely civil dispute is sought to be given a criminal color by moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶13

Upon a query being made to the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant could not show his title on the said land. A perusal of the order dated 12.04.2022 shows that the learned court below has gone into detail of every paragraph of application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereafter, came to the conclusion that dispute primarily is of civil in nature and is sought to be converted into a criminal case. No cognizable offence prima facie appears to be made out and thus, has rejected the application. The relevant part of the order passed on 12.04.2022 is extracted below:-

¶14

" पततवललककपररशललनसकसपषहहकक, पतररदतरतपतररनतपतककधतरत-1 ककससबसध ममककईभलममलएवसपमतकणतदसततवकजलसतकयपसत नहहककयतगयतहह, जजससक यहपरमदषटतसपषहकसककककउकभमकमगतटतसस० 87/0.045 हक०कतपतरर पसजलककतसवतमलहह।पतररनतपतककधतरत 2 व 3 ककससबसधममपतररदतरतजलजखततकर पसत ककयकगयकहहजजससकयहसपषहहकक, पतररकतनतमनतककवककततवनहल ककततककरपममनयतयतलयककसमकपसत पगतणणततखततनलककछतयतपकतममदजर हहऔरनहलपतररकतनतमहसजसयतगवतहककरपममसणममजलतहह, जजससकयहसपष हहकक, पतररदतरतककईभलसतकयनयतयतलयककसमकऐसतपसत नहहककयतगयत हहजजससकयहजसदहकसकककक, उकपसजलककतभमकमममपतररककसहयकगसकगतटत सस० 87/0.045 हक0 परणसरतपतररकतमकतनकककदखतकरकवककततगणदतरतगतटत सस० 87/0.045 हक०भमकमकककककषसकइतरभमकमघककषतककयतगयतहह।पतररदतरत पसत पतररनतपतममकहतसगयतहहककपतररककभमकमकतबहनतमतकवककततगणदतरत करकदयतगयततकपतननउसलसमपजतकतबहनतमतकरनककतअजधकतरकवककततगणकक नहहहहऔरनहलकवपकलसस० 1 ककभमकमकतबहनतमतकरतनककतअजधकतरहह।कककषसक इतरभमकमकतबहनतमतहकनकककबतदउसलभमकमककभमकमधरलभमकमकदखतकरककन पररणसरकतययममकदतलयबहनतमतकरतयतगयत, यकदभमकमभमकमधरलहहएवसअनतसमकचत जतकतककवयककककहहतकअनतसमकचतभतगवयककककअलतवतयकदककसलअनयजतकत कककवकयकरकदयतहहतकउसकधतरत 157 (अ) उतरपदकशजमहदतरलकवनतस अजधकनयमएवसएल०आर०ऐकटककअनतगरतकवकयकरनकपरकबनतकल क टरकक पमवरअनतमकतसकपतबसदलहह।पतररदतरतकहकगयककरनयककपतररनकककसलभल दसततवकजलसकसतकयसकसमजररननहहककयतहहजजससकयहसपषहकसककककउक भमकमपतररककसहयकगसककमटरचनतएवसछलसकदसततवकजतहयतरकरतकरपतररकक हतकनपहहसचतनकककउदकशयसकउतपकररतककयतगयत, जजससकयहसपषहकसकककक कवपकलगणदतरतकतररतअपरतधससजकयपकककतकतहह।पतररककउपरकककरन कवशवसनलयपतलतनहहहकतक।पतररनतपत -असपषएवसभतमकहह।ऐसकममपतररनतपत ममउकलजखततथययसककवपकलगणदतरतइससतरपरककईससजकयपकककतकतअपरतध

¶15

कतररतककयतजतनतपरमदषयतसपषनहहहकततहह।पसत पकरणककतथय पमणरतयतजसकवलपकककतककहह।जसकवलपकककतककबतदयककआपरतजधकवतदमम तरमलभककयतजतनतनयतयससगतपतलतनहहहकततहह।पतररयकदचतहकतकइसकत अन त कषजसकवलअजधकतररतवतलकसकमनयतयतलयसकपतपकरसकततहह।पतररनत पतसवलककतहकनकयकगयनहहहह, बणलककनरसतहकनकयकगयहह।

¶16

आदकश

¶17

पतररदतरतपसत पतररनत-पतअनतगरतधतरत-156(3) द०प०कनरसतककयतजततत हह।"

¶18

Against that a revision has been filed by the petitioner which too has been rejected by the revisional court finding no illegality in the order impugned dated 15.04.2022.

¶19

A perusal of both the orders show that prima facie no cognizable offence has been found to be committed by the accused persons. Revisional court has rightly recorded a finding that there appears to be a partition dispute regarding the house in question and already a civil suit filed by the petitioner is pending between the parties and considering the judgment of Indra Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttranchal reported in [2008 (1) JIC, 737 (SC)] , the revisional court has rightly rejected the revision petition. The relevant part of the revisional court's order is extracted below:-

¶20

"8. कव०अवरनयतयतलयककपततवललससलगहह।पसत पकरणममपतररदतरतगतटत सस० 87/0.060 हक०ममसकरकबत 0.045 हक०भमकमकतजररएनकटरलकवकयपतकरतनक कतकरनककयतगयतहहतरतधनरतकशकतभतगततनररवलजनकततरदतरतककयतगयतहह। उकबहनतमतपतररवकवपकलसस02 शलतलतपसतदपटवतदकनयककनतमहह।बहनतमककक बतदसकहलकवककततसगणदतरतकबककशतदतभमकमपरकबजतवदखलपतररककदककदयत गयतऔरपतररउकभमकमपरआवतसलयमकतनबनतकरपररवतरसकहतकनवतरतकर रहतहह।पतररककगतसवककसमपमणरपहत समपजतककदकखभतलककजजममकदतरलरल औरकवपकलसस02 कककपततदतरतमतमबईममपहत वयवसतयककचलतनकवआगकबढतनक ककजजममकदतरलदलगयल।कवपकलसस02 सपररवतर 1995 सकहलमतमबईममरहकर वयवसतयदकखतकरहकहह।उपरककभमकमअनतसमकचतजतकतककहकनककककतरणगतटतसस० 87 कतरजजसटररबहनतमतनहहकरतयतजतसकत।कवककततगणदतरतगतटतसस० 87/0.045 हक0 परणसरतपतररककमकतनककहलकदखतकरउपरककभमकमकक उपजजलतजधकतरलभतटलदतरतकदनतसक 20.09.2018 कककककषसकइतरभमकमघककषत करतयतगयत।पतररकककषसकइतरभमकमघककषतहकनकककबतदकवककततगणसकबतर-2 पसजलककतदसततवकजबहनतमतकरनककतआगहककयतगयतपरनततकवककततगसणदतरतकहत गयतकककबककशतदतभमकमपरआपकतमकतनकनकमरतहहऔरसपररवतरलगभग 20 वषरससकरहरहकहहतकअबपसजलककतबहनतममककककईआवशयकततनहहहह।उक पशनगतभमकमममकवपकलसस02, कवपकलसस० 3 तत 5 सकसतजजशकरकवककततगणकक पहसककतलतलचद क रपतररककमकतनककबततरआबतदलकरतजलयत।चमसककआबतदल ककभमकमकतनतमतनतरणनहहहकततहहइसजलएकवपकलसस02, कवपकलसस० 3 तत 5 सक

¶21

षरयसतकरफजरएवसकमटरकचतदसततवकजतहयतरकरतकरउसलआबतदलककभमकमकक ससकमणलयभमकमकदखतकरकदनतसक 29.07.2021 कककवककततगणककधकखकममरख करपसजलककतदसततवकजबहनतमतकरतजलयतऔरउसककबतद 05 कदनयककअनदर नतमतनतरणकककतयरवतहलकरतललगयल।इसपकतरपततवललककअवलककनसक कवकदतहहककपशनगतसमपजतककससबसधममकवपकलसस02 एवसकनगरतनलकततरजककक आपसममसगकभतईहह, वकमधयजसकवलवतदलसकबतरहतहहतरतबहनतमतकवपकल सस० 3 ततकवपकलसस05 ककदतरतकवपकलसस02 ककपकममककयकजतनककतकरनककयत गयतहह।चमसककउसबहनतमकममकनगरतनलकततरसवयसपककतरभलनहहहह।उकबहनतमककक कनरसतलकरणकतवतददलवतनलनयतयतलयममममलवतदसस० 523/2021 सवतमलपसतद पटवतबनतमशलतलतपसतदपटवतआकदकवचतरतधलनहह।इसककउपरतनतपसतर 4 मम करनककयतगयतहहकककवपकलसस० 1 तत 4 दतरतसतजजशककतहतउकगतटत ससखयतकतफजरएवसकमटरकचतदसततवकजककआधतरपरकदनतसक 29.07.2021 कक दमसरतबहनतमतपसजलककतकरतयतगयतहह।उलकखनलयहहककपतरर / कनगरतनलकततरव कवपकल/पतयररककमधयजसकवलवतदलणमबतहकनतकहतगयतहह।उपयतरकतथयय तरतपतररकनगरतनलकततरदतरतपसत तथययककदकषगतरखतकहहएपरमदषयतयक सपषहकततहहकककनषपतकदतकबलकखककससबसधममकववतदहह. जकककएकजसकवल पकककतकककववतदहह।इसपकतरमतमलतजसकवलपकककतकतपररलककतहकततहहऔर यहकवकदतहकततहहककदबतवबनतनकहकततअरवतककसलअनतकचतहकततकसकजसकवल पकककतककदतदककआपरतजधकसवरप कदए जतनककतपयतसककयतजतरहतहह।ऐसकमम कनगरतनलकततरदतरतककयकगयकअकभकजरतकरनयएवसदतजखलदसततवकजयसकककसल ससजकयअपरतधकतकतररतहकनतपतकतनहहहकरहतहहतरतभतइययककमधयबसटवतरत एवसमकतनककससबसधममकववतदहह।जसकवलपकककतककवतदककदबतवबनतनकककउदकशय सकनतमलकककआपरतजधकमतमलकममपररवकतरतकरनकककपवकजतककआलकचनतकरतक हहएमतननलयउचचतमनयतयतलयदतरतउसकहतकतसतकहतककयकजतनकपरकबलकदयत गयतहह।

¶22

इसससबसधममकवजधकदषतसतइनदमकहनगकसवतमलबनतमसटकटऑफउतरतसचल, 2008 (1) ЛС 737 (SC) ससदभरयकगयहह, जजसमममतननलयउचचतमनयतयतलय दतरतयहअकभकनधत र रतककयतगयतहहकक, जसकवलकववतद, दतवय, जजसममककई आपरतजधकककतयशतकमलनहक, दतणणरकअकभयकगककमतधयमसकदबतवबनतनककक उदकशयसकउनकककनपटतनकहकततककयकगयकककसलभलपकककतकककननदतवउसक हतकतसतकहतककयतजतनतचतकहए।

¶23

इसपकतरउपयतरककवबकचनतसकसपषहहकककवदतनअवरनयतयतलयदतरत पततवललपरउपलबधतथयएवससतकयकतसमयकककवशलकषणवममलयतसकनकरतकहहए आसक क पतआदकशकद० 12.04.2022 पतररतककयतगयतहह।मतमलकककसमपमणरतथय एवसपररणसरकतययममककईकवजधकएवसतथयततमकततकटपररलककतनहहहकरहलहह तरतजजसममहसतककपककककईआवशयकततनहहहह।पसत दतणणरकपतनरलकण यतकचकतसतरहलनवबलहलनहकनककककतरणकनरसतहकनकयकगयहह।

¶24

आदकश

¶25

पसत सवतमलनतरपटवतबनतम दतणणरकपतनरलकणयतकचकतसस० 34/2022. सरकतरआकदकनरसतककजततलहह।तदकदनतसतरकवदतनअवरनयतयतलयदतरतपककणर वतदसस० 900/2021, सवतमलनतरपटवतपकतशलतलतपसतदपटवतआकदममपतररत आलकचयआदकशकदनतसककत 12.04.2022 पतषककयतजतततहह।

¶26

समबणनधतदणरवतदजलकपकककआद क शतककयतजतततहहककवहइसआदकश

¶27

ककएकपकतककसतरकवदतनअवरयतयतलयककपततवलल, अकवलमबकवदतनअवर नयतयतलयककवतपसकरदम।"

¶28

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, I find no illegality in both the impugned orders, dispute primarily is between two real brothers i.e. petitioner and opposite party No.2 relating to plot/house in question for which already a civil suit is pending and prima facie no cognizable offence has been found to be committed by the respondent No.2. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

Order Date :- 19.4.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Swami Nath Patwa v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Nath Patwa v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Guddu Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Pavnesh Kumar Yadav @ Chintu vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Ankit Das @ Govind vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Balram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Saddam Khan @ Kafeel Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others