Ram Shankar @ Rama Shankar and 2 Others vs Up Zila Magistrate Lalganj Raebareli and 9 Others

Although, the Sub Divisional Magistrate Lalganj, Raebareli and the Station House Officer, Police Station Sareni, District Raebareli have been impleaded as opposite parties no.2 and 2, notice of this petition has not been given to the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel/learned Government Advocate.

¶13

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of judgment and order dated 31.01.2026, passed by learned Special Judge, EC Act/Additional Sessions Judge IV, Raebareli allowing the Criminal Revision No.51 of 2022 filed by the opposite parties no.3 to 10 against an order dated 24.01.2022, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Lalganj, District Raebareli under Sections 145(1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C.

¶14

The petitioners had filed an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. stating that they and the opposite parties no.3 to 10 belong to the same family. There is a dispute between the parties regarding some family properties. The opposite parties no.3 to 10 have filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The mutation

¶15

A227 No. 2021 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

proceedings are pending before the Naib Tehsildar, Raebareli. The opposite parties are forcibly trying to take possession of the property. The police submitted a report that there is a property dispute between the parties and there was a probability of breach of peace. The Magistrate had passed an order dated 11.02.2022 issuing notice to the parties under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. and had directed the police to attach the property. The revisional court placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramsumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P: AIR 1985 SC 472 , wherein it was held that when the proceedings before the civil court are going on, parallel proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot continue. The revisional court held that although the Sub Divisional Magistrate has found that the opposite parties no.3 to 10 are in possession of the property, yet an attachment order has been passed on the application given by the petitioners. The attachment order is an attempt to dispossess the opposite parties no.3 to 10 from the property in their possession, whereas the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not have the jurisdiction to pass such an order. The revisional court relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Makhanlal Raina Vs. Additional City Magistrate Lucknow and others: 1988 LCD 143 , wherein this court held that person who is admittedly in possession of the immovable property cannot be dispossessed in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

¶18

For the foregoing reasons, the revisional court found that the order of SDM passed under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. had been passed in an abuse of the jurisdiction concerned upon the magistrate and accordingly the revisional court set aside the order dated 24.01.2022, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and remanded the matter for being decided afresh. I find no infirmity or illegality in the aforesaid reason recorded by the learned revisional court whereby the revisional court has remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for being decided afresh. It is open for the petitioners to participate in the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and advance submissions which are admissible in law.

¶19

A227 No. 2021 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

The petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed

¶22

April 21, 2026 Ram.

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Shankar @ Rama Shankar and 2 Others v. Up Zila Magistrate Lalganj Raebareli and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Shankar @ Rama Shankar and 2 Others v. Up Zila Magistrate Lalganj Raebareli and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Shankar Soni @ Pappu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Arun Kumar Singh vs Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office

Asgar Ali Jabir Ali Khan and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Ruchi @ Ruchi Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Kajal Verma Thru. Her Husband Sohan Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mamta Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another