Heera Lal Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4529 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 45
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12605 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Heera Lal Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yadvendra Krishan,Indra Jit Singh,Shiv Nath Singh(Senior Adv.),Surya Bhan Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Indra Jit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sinha, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

The present writ petition has been filed with following prayers:-

"1. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for record of the case and quashing the impugned first information report dated 27.10.2020 registered as Case Crime No.0013 of 2020, under section 120-B, 471, 467 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station S.I.T., District Lucknow. (Annexure No.1) in respect of the petitioner.

2. Issue a writ, of mandamus commanding the respondent no to arrest the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned first information report dated 27.10.2020 registered as Case Crime No.0013 of 2020, under section 120-B, 471, 467 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station S.I.T., District Lucknow.

3. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Award cost to the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."

At the very outset, learned counsel for the State raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition at Allahabad. It is argued that the impugned first information report has been registered at District Lucknow for offence which was committed at Lucknow and as such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition and hear it. It is argued that on the own showing of the petitioner, the impugned first information report, the copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition was registered at Police Station S.I.T., District Lucknow and as such this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and entertain the present writ petition which should be dismissed.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that the present writ petition may be transferred to the Lucknow Bench of this Court in view of the judgement of Sri Nasiruddin Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal: (1975) 2 SCC 671. It is argued that since the first information report has been registered at Lucknow, this Court has powers to do so under Clause 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 and as such the same be transferred to Lucknow for its hearing.

Before proceeding to examine the matter on merits, we propose and consider it appropriate to deal with the preliminary objection raised by Sri Amit Sinha, learned counsel for the State.

The Apex Court in the case of Sri Nasiruddin (supra) has noted in paragraphs 12 and 13 as follows:-

"12. It is in this context that the following five questions were referred for decision to the Full Bench :

(1) Can a case falling within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this Court be presented at Allahabad ?

(2) Can the Judges sitting at Allahabad summarily dismiss a case presented at Allahabad pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench ?

(3) Can a case pertaining to the jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench, presented and entertained at Allahabad, be decided finally by the Judges sitting at Allahabad, without there being an order as contemplated by the second proviso to Article 14 of the U.P. High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 ?

(4) What is the meaning of the expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" used in first proviso to Article 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) order, 1948 ? Has this expression reference to the place where the case originated or to the place of the sitting of the last Court of authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceedings before the High Court ?

(5) Whether this writ petition can be entertained, heard and decided by the Judges sitting at Lucknow?

13. The majority view of the Full Bench gave the following answers:-

(1) A case falling within the jurisdiction of Judges at Lucknow should be presented at Lucknow and not at Allahabad.

(2) However, if such a case is presented at Allahabad, the Judges at Allahabad cannot summarily dismiss it only for that reason. The case should be returned for filing before the Judges at Lucknow and where the case has been mistakenly or inadvertently entertained at Allahabad, a direction should be made to the High Court office to transmit the papers of the case to Lucknow.

(3) A case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Judges at Lucknow and presented before the Judges at Allahabad cannot be decided by the Judges at Allahabad in the absence of an order contemplated by the second proviso to Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948.

(4) The expression "in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh" used in the first proviso to Article 14 of the High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, refers to legal proceedings, including civil cases, criminal cases, petitions under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution and petitions under Articles 132, 133 and 134 of the Constitution instituted before the Judges sitting at Lucknow and having their origin, in the sense explained in the majority judgment in such areas in Oudh as the Chief Justice may direct. The expression "arising in such areas in Oudh" refers to the place where the case originated in the sense explained in the majority judgment and not to the place sitting of the last court or authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceeding before the High Court.

(5) The Lucknow Bench have no jurisdiction to hear writ petition No. 750 of 1964 which gave rise to writ petition No. 3294 of 1970."

While, dealing with the said questions and the answers as given therein, the conclusions as drawn by the Apex Court are in paragraph 38 of the said judgement which are as follows:-

"38. To sum up. Our conclusions are as follows. First, there is no permanent seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The seats at Allahabad and at Lucknow may be changed in accordance with the provisions of the order. Second, the Chief Justice of the High Court has no power to increase or decrease the areas in Oudh from time to time. The areas in Oudh have been determined once by the Chief Justice and, therefore, there is no scope for changing the areas. Third, the Chief Justice has power under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order to direct in his discretion that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Any case or class of cases are those which are instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation given by the High Court that the word "heard" confers powers on the Chief Justice to order that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be instituted or filed at Allahabad, instead of Lucknow is wrong. The word "heard" means that cases which have already been instituted or filed at Lucknow may in the discretion of the Chief Justice under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order he directed to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth, the expression "cause of action" with regard to a civil matter means that it should be left to the litigant to institute cases at Lucknow Bench or at Allahabad Bench according to the cause of action arising wholly or in part within either of the areas. If the cause of action arises wholly within Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly, if the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas in Oudh then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action in part arises in the specified Oudh areas and part of the cause of action arises outside the specified areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at Allahabad. Fifth, a criminal case arises where the offence has been committed or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. That will attract the jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad or Lucknow. In some cases depending on the facts and the provision regarding jurisdiction, it may arise in either place."

The controversy as has been raised in the present case has been answered by the Apex Court in its conclusion which has been dealt with as the third conclusion therein. The same is at the cost of repetition being again extracted herein below:-

"38. ........................ Third, the Chief Justice has power under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order to direct in his discretion that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Any case or class of cases are those which are instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation given by the High Court that the word "heard" confers powers on the Chief Justice to order that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be instituted or filed at Allahabad, instead of Lucknow is wrong. The word "heard" means that cases which have already been instituted or filed at Lucknow may in the discretion of the Chief Justice under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Order be directed to be heard at Allahabad."

A perusal of the third conclusion of the Apex Court in the case of Sri Nasiruddin (supra) leaves no doubt that a case which has already been instituted or filed at Lucknow may in the discretion of the Chief Justice under the second proviso to paragraph 14 of the Amalgamation Order be directed to be heard at Allahabad but not vice-versa. This leaves with no doubt that a case filed or instituted at Lucknow can be directed to be heard at Allahabad but a case filed or instituted at Allahabad cannot be directed to be heard at Lucknow. The legal proposition is quite clear and specific.

Looking to the position of law as stated above and the facts of the present case, this Court comes to a conclusion that the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition at Allahabad as raised by the learned counsel for the State, has substance. The argument of learned Senior Advocate that the present case be transferred to Lucknow as per the dictum laid down in the case of Sri Nasiruddin (supra) is fallacious.

The present writ petition is dismissed on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to hear the same.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum / Court, if so advised.

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 24.3.2021

AS Rathore/ RK