Allahabad High Court
Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs State Of U.P. & Another on 4 September, 2015
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Reserved
Court No. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 342 of 2010
Revisionist :- Smt. Shakuntala Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Janardan Prakash, Dinesh Kumar Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate, Prabhakar Dubey
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.
1.The present revision has been filed against order dated 12.4.2010 passed by the S.D.M, Bansi, district Siddharth Nagar in Case No. 40 of 2010, Shakuntala Devi v. Vikas under section 145 Cr. P.C., police station Golhaura, Siddharth Nagar by which proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. was dropped.
2.Admitted case of the parties are that owner of the disputed plot were Chandrika and Dropadi who had sold the said plot to Vikas (present Respondent No. 2) by a registered sale deed dated 16.8.2008. It is also admitted that till now no other sale deed regarding said plot had been executed in favour of the revisionist or any other person.
3.Shakuntala Devi (present revisionist) had moved an application in court below with averment that owners of said plot, Chandrika and Dropadi, had handed over possession of such plot for cultivation and Batai, and had promised to execute sale-deed of the same in her favour after receiving some advance consideration for proposed sale deed. But they had not executed sale deed. She is still in possession of said plot and opposite party Vikas is attempting to interfere in his peaceful possession and therefore proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. Should be initiated.
4.Opposite Party Vikas had filed objection before the lower court in which, inter alia, he had claimed his owner ship and possession of the plot on the basis of registered sale deed dated 16.8.20087 executed by previous owners for disputed property. It was also stated that mutation proceeding has been completed and the name of opposite-party (Vikas) had been mutated over the disputed property since 16.9.2009. Therefore, opposite party Vikas is owner in possession of disputed property on the basis of said sale deed executed in favour by those persons who were admitted owners of said property. There is no apprehension of breach of peace. In such circumstances the proceedings should be dropped.
5.Learned SDM had obtained a report from the police regarding position of apprehension of breach of peace. Then it was reported by police that there is no likelihood of breach of peace. After receiving the said report, the learned Magistrate had dropped the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. by impugned order dated 12.4.2010. Aggrieved by which the present revision has been preferred by the Shakuntala Devi, revisionist.
6.I have heard rival contentions and gone through the records and legal position.
7.It is admitted fact that revisionist (Shakuntala Devi, wife of Ram Shabd) is not owner and the disputed plot. According to her own version she had been promised by original owners that sale-deed of said property would be executed in her favour, but the same was never executed. It is settled legal position that without registered transfer-deed she cannot be the owner of the said property; and such deed was never executed. It is also not disputed that previous owners of disputed property had executed registered sale-deed of said property in favour of Vikas, whose name has been mutated over said disputed agricultural property by competent revenue court. When ownership of disputed property has been determined by a competent revenue court, then revisionist cannot claim possession over it against wishes of its real owner, i.e. opposite party no. 2 Vikas. Proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. is initiated as interim measure for maintaining peace till decision of right and title relating to subject matter. In present competent court had already decided the ownership right and title of respondent no.-2 (Vikas) over disputed property. As discussed above claim of revisionist over disputed property is proved baseless and without any right. Therefore he had no right to assert any claim over disputed property.
8.Apart from it, record reveals that after obtaining report and considering facts and circumstance relating to the matter in question, and also after application of mind, the SDM, Bansi had come to conclusion that there is no likelihood of breach of peace in respect disputed property. This finding of the court below is based on facts , before the Court below and appears to be proper and correct. Such finding cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In absence of any likelihood or apprehension of breach of peace, the court below was perfectly justified in dropping and ending the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. by the impugned order. There is no illegality, impropriety or error in the impugned order that may require interference through exercise of revisional jurisdictional. Therefore the revision is dismissed.
Order Date:- 4.9.2015
SKS
