Disposed

Rashid Ali and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2024CRLA/148/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted interim stay of criminal proceedings involving land dispute pending related civil suit, remanded to get counteraffidavit filed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings shall remain stayed. Time granted for filing counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

What the court decided

Rashid Ali and 3 Others vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 148 of 2024 Appellant :- Rashid Ali And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Farhan Alam Osmany,Mohd. Raziullah Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶4

In pursuance of earlier order dated 19.02.2024, parties are present before this Court.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Complaint Case no.516/2019.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants were recorded tenure holder of plot no.1093 (now plot no.1087), area ad-measuring 0.1380 hectare, village Jalalnagar, Bahar Chungi, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Shahjahanpur and the part of the said property ad-measuring 323.02 sq. mt. was sold to one Naresh Kumar Gambhir on 01.02.2001, thereafter, area ad-measuring 193.26 sq. mt. as well as 129.76 sq. mt. from the part of Naresh Kumar Gambhir of the said property was sold by him in favour of Nanhi Devi and Ramshri respectively. He further submitted that Naresh Kumar Gambhir again executed a sale deed and sold the area ad-measuring 239.47 sq. mt. including the land of the appellants to Kusuma Devi (wife of the complainant of the case in question) without mentioning the Gata number in the aforesaid sale deed and he also tried to encroach the land of his choice, thereafter, a mutation application was moved and the objection was raised and also the threat was given, as a result, F.I.R. No.483/2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Sadar Bazar, DistrictShahjahanpur was lodged on 08.07.2019 and charge sheet was submitted against Naresh Kumar Gambhir and closure report was submitted in favour of appellants as well as Vimlesh Kumar and Vijay Kumar Verma, witnesses of the alleged sale deed which was executed in favour of Kusuma Devi/wife of complainant of the case in question.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainant is working as a Postal Assistant in DistrictShahjahanpur and is also engaged in business of real estate and only with the intention to make pressure on the appellants for taking property of his choice, the complaint of case in question was filed and at the same time, correction deed was also executed by Naresh Kumar Gambhir by mentioning Gata number but without demarcation, no possession can be taken by the complainant and no demarcation suit has been filed before the Competent Authority. He further submitted that after considering all these facts, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed, thereafter, he challenged the aforesaid order before this Court and the matter was remanded back and the summoning order was passed on 11.11.2021 under Sections 379, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act and the appeal was filed before this Court against the aforesaid order, thereafter, liberty was given for filing the discharge application but the same was also rejected. He further submitted that the impugned proceedings are sheer abuse of legal provisions as Kusuma Devi/ wife of complainant has already filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shahjahanpur, in which, the appellants have been arrayed as private respondents, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer of appellants and submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court but they could dispute this fact that initially, the appellants were recorded tenure holder of plot no.1093 (now plot no.1087), area ad-measuring 0.1380 hectare, village Jalalnagar, Bahar Chungi, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Shahjahanpur and the part of the said property ad-measuring 323.02 sq. mt. was sold to one Naresh Kumar Gambhir on 01.02.2001, thereafter, area ad-measuring 193.26 sq. mt. as well as 129.76 sq. mt. from the part of Naresh Kumar Gambhir of the said property was sold by him in favour of Nanhi Devi and Ramshri respectively, thereafter, Naresh Kumar Gambhir again executed a sale deed and sold the area ad-measuring 239.47 sq. mt. including the land of the appellants to Kusuma Devi (wife of the complainant of the case in question) without mentioning the Gata number in the aforesaid sale deed, thereafter, dispute was raised and mutation application was moved and the objection was raised, thereafter, threat was given, as a result, F.I.R. No.483/2019 (supra) was lodged on 08.07.2019 against Naresh Kumar Gambhir, Kusuma Devi as well as other accused persons and charge sheet was submitted against Naresh Kumar Gambhir, thereafter, a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shahjahanpur, in

¶10

which, the appellants have been arrayed as private respondents which is pending.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, impugned order, supplementary affidavit, as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that initially, appellants were recorded tenure holder of the property in question and Kusuma Devi/wife of complainant purchased the said property from Naresh Kumar Gambhir and he purchased a part of the said property from the appellants as well as the Gata number was not mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of Kususma Devi/wife of complainant. It is also evident that F.I.R. No.483/2019 (supra) was lodged against Kusuma Devi, Naresh Kumar Gambhir and other accused persons, as a civil suit is already pending related to the said property, therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

¶12

Two weeks' time is granted to learned counsel for the complainant to file counter affidavit, thereafter, one week's time is granted to learned counsel for the appellants for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶13

List immediately thereafter.

¶14

Until further order, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.

¶15

Parties need not to appear before this Court until further order.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.2.2024

¶17

V. Sinha

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rashid Ali and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Rashid Ali and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anoop Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. and 5 Others

Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Rohit Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ashutosh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Mahmood Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Sameem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. and Another