Sudhir Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10534 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 53
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4348 of 2015
 

 
Revisionist :- Sudhir Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dhiraj Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Raj Srivastava,Sudeep Harkauli
 

 
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

Case is called out in the revised call.

None responds to press this revision from either of the parties.

However, learned A.G.A is present for the State.

Heard learned A.G.A and perused the record.

There is dispute regarding ownership of jewellery shop between the real brothers.

This Court has considered the facts that there was a dispute between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 (real brothers) with regard to property-in-dispute (Jewellery shop), later on which has been settled in favour of the revisionist under a compromise-decree on 30.04.1990.

From perusal of Annexure no. 4, it transpires that in this regard an original civil suit no. 748 of 1987 - Subhash Vs. Ravi Chandra & Ors. had been instituted and in which on the basis of compromise, a compromise decree had been passed and the property in question had fallen in the share of the revisionist.

It is settled principle of law that a decree on merit or a compromise-deed may also be given effect under order 21 of C.P.C. Hence, it was duty of the decree holder to file an execution case for execution of the decree and in that case there was no occasion for the S.D.M to intervene through Sections 145 and 146 (1) Cr.P.C.

It appears that the order of S.D.M is without jurisdiction. A remedy is very much available to the decree holder and to the judgment debtor to settle their further dispute under order 21 Cr.P.C.

Learned A.G.A for the State produced an order dated 23.11.2019 passed in another case (Original Suit No. 864 of 2015 - Sudhir Kumar Vs. Mahesh Kumar & Ors.), in which parties entered into compromise, they executed a Compromise Deed No. 79-A-1, in which parties agreed to get the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C, cancelled, pending in the Court of City Magistrate, Saharanpur.

The present revisionist has accepted their guilt and not to claim the property in question any more in future.

This criminal revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 10.4.2023.

Vinod.