Disposed

Saiful Haq Farooqui and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2024A482/562/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court recounted submissions regarding the quashing of impugned orders allowing investigation and noted the argument on applicant's locus. The court issued notice to the opposite party, directed filing of counter-affidavits, and stayed the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to opposite party No.2; counter-affidavit to be filed within four weeks; operation of impugned orders stayed pending next date.

Saiful Haq Farooqui and 3 Others vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 562 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Saiful Haq Farooqui And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Siddhartha Sinha, Arun Sinha, Ram Chandra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha along with Sri Siddhartha Sinha, learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State.

¶6

2. Issue notice to opposite party No.2 returnable at an early date, for which, necessary steps be taken within a week.

¶7

3. Office to proceed accordingly.

¶8

4. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶9

"(i) to quash the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Sitapur along with all entire subsequent proceedings arising out of the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure No.1).

¶10

(ii) to quash the impugned order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.4, Sitapur along with all entire subsequent proceedings arising out of the impugned order dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure No.2)."

¶11

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party No.2 was rightly rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur vide order dated 13.01.2023 for the reason that the civil dispute appears to be settled by filing a criminal case and as per the trite law, the disputes which are having civil colour, should not be settled by initiating criminal proceedings. However, the opposite party No.2 filed a revision before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court without appreciating the actual fact and circumstances of the issue in question and also on the wrong premises to the effect that one registered sale-deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 by the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 on the basis of one Hibbanama has passed the order dated 12.12.2023.

¶12

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated on affidavit in para-43 of the petition that the learned Sessions Judge has not only indicated the wrong details of the property in question but has also wrongly indicated that a sale-deed has been executed by the petitioner Nos.3 & 4 in favour of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

¶13

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that after order of the learned Additional District Judge having been passed in the revisional jurisdiction one application has been filed to the Revisional Court to apprise that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Revisional Court has been obtained on the basis of wrong facts and considering those wrong facts the Revisional Court has remanded the matter to the Magistrate to pass a fresh order.

¶14

8. On the basis of the aforesaid direction of the Revisional Court, the Magistrate passed an order dated 11.01.2024 allowing the application of the opposite party No.2 filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing the police concerned to register the F.I.R. and to make investigation.

¶15

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that when the basic premise of the order of the Revisional Court is misconceived, therefore, any order passed pursuant to the order passed by the Revisional Court will loose its efficacy.

¶16

10. On the other hand, Sri Aniruddhi Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I has stated that since the order has been passed on the application of the opposite party No.2 filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioners have got no locus to challenge that order.

¶17

11. On that, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that this is not a case wherein the simple application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the Magistrate, but this is a case wherein such application was earlier rejected on the basis of police report and pursuant to the order of the Revisional Court such application has been allowed and in that revision the present petitioners were party, therefore, there is no question of locus of the petitioners in the case in hand.

¶18

12. The matter requires consideration.

¶19

13. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶20

14. List this case in the week commencing 18.03.2023.

¶21

15. Till the next date of listing, the operation and implementation of the impugned orders dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure No.1) and 11.01.2024 (Annexure No.2) shall remain stayed.

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 23.1.2024 Suresh/

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saiful Haq Farooqui and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saiful Haq Farooqui and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

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

Rahul Dwivedi @ R.D. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Dr. Roop Kishore Gautam and Others vs Ms. Leena Jauhari, Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush, Lko.

Amit Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Maulik Saraswat (Minor Corpus) Thru. His Mother Smt. Swati Sharma vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Dhananjay Kumar Patra vs State of U.P. and Another