Allahabad High Court
Bipin Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:53403-DB
Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6282 of 2023
Petitioner :- Bipin Kumar And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arshad Ahsan Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 05.02.2023, registered as FIR/Case Crime No.0036 of 2023, under Sections 307, 308, 323, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., P.S.-Kudwar, District - Sultanpur, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. A further prayer for issuing a a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner on the basis impugned FIR has been made.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have jointly purchased the property which is a piece of vacant land by means of two sale deeds dated 15.06.2021 from one Mahmood Alam Khan. Such property is situated over Gata No.760 m (total area 0.0380 hectare) in Village - Ahmadpur Nazool, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Raebareli. Names of the petitioners were also mutated in the revenue record on 10.08.2021. The petitioners took possession and were living peacefully in the said property. The petitioners also started a restaurant over the said property. In October, 2022, one Neel Kumar Gupta, Mohnish Kumar Gupta and Parwati Gupta tried to grab the aforesaid properties of the petitioners. The petitioners filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the Neel Kumar Gupta, Mohnish Kumar Gupta and Parwati Gupta before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.16, Raebareli on 13.10.2022. The trial court had granted ad interim injunction in favour of the petitioners on 13.10.2022. The said ad interim injunction is still operative against the private respondents. In the meantime, the defendants of the said suit sold some property relating to a different gata to opposite party Nos. 8 to 10 by means of three different registered sale-deeds on 16.06.2023. The opposite party No.6 is a prominent leader of the Ruling political party and under his influence the petitioners' property over Gata No.760m, which is adjacent to the main road is being tried to be taken over by the opposite parties Nos. 6 to 10. They have connived with the local administration and managed to initiate proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. and an order was also passed under Section 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. by the Executive Magistrate on 14.06.2023. The petitioners being aggrieved filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Raebareli on 15.07.2023 itself on the ground that during pendency of civil suit wherein an ad interim injunction is in favour of the petitioners no proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were maintainable. No interim order has been granted till date in the criminal revision which is pending. In the meanwhile, the police as well as the opposite parties Nos. 6 to 10 are harassing the petitioners and, hence this writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and another, (2000) 4 SCC 440, wherein the Supreme Court was considering an order passed by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. refusing to entertain the petition against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The facts in brief were that the first respondent had a dispute with some private persons and not with the appellants. A suit for declaration, for title and possession was filed, which was pending in which an interim injunction of maintaining of status quo was passed by the Civil Judge, Gyanpur, on 10.10.1990. On 10.10.1990 itself the said private person executed a sale deed in favour of a third person/Smt. Prem Kali, the mother of the appellant and the possession of the said property was delivered to Smt. Prem Kali on the same day. Smt. Prem Kali was also impleaded as party defendant in suit No.280 of 1990. Issues were framed and the suit was pending trial.
While the suit was pending, the Station Officer, P.S. Aurai made a report to the S.D.M., Gyanpur, on the basis of which, the Sub Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the order under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. was passed by the S.D.M., which was challenged in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court.
It is evident from the facts as mentioned in the aforecited judgment that the defendants in the pending suit were same as those in between whom the proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. were initiated and order was passed. In the case of the petitioners, it is apparent that the defendants in the civil suit are different from the opposite party Nos. 6 to 10, who perhaps have bought property adjacent to the property on which the civil suit is pending.
This Court finds no good ground to grant the prayer as made in the writ petition, in view of the fact that the petitioners have already availed the statutory remedy of filing criminal revision before the Sessions Judge concerned.
Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
ML/-
