Allahabad High Court
Tulsi Ram vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 13 May, 2024
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36647
Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 638 of 2017
Applicant :- Tulsi Ram
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Gopal Tripathi,Mahesh Kumar Kaushal Man
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Anand Kumar Srivastava,Kailash Nath Mishra,Vidhu Bhushan,Vineeta Pandey
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard SriMadan Gopal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Room No.1, Balrampur in Revision No.114/2013 dated 30.08.2016 and also to quash the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balrampur in Case No.8/8/11, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. dated 24.06.2013.
The brief facts of the case are that one ancestor Gaya Prasad had two sons, namely, Balak Ram and Ram Awadh. Balak Ram had one son i.e. Gomti Prasad. Ram Awadh had one son Rajit Ram and one daughter Thakura Dei. Thakura Dei married with Shobha Ram and out of their wedlock, five sons born, namely, Ganesh Dutt, Tulsi Ram (instant applicant), Tula Ram, Prahlad Ram and Ravindra. Gomti Prasad was unmarried so he executed his will deed on 27.04.1997 in favour of Tulsi Ram.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that one Ramesh Mani took the Gomti Prasad in the office of Sub Registrar and got registered an adoption deed in place of power of attorney in favour of his son Sunil Kumar. The applicant preferred a case for mutation of his name in place of Gomti Prasad, however, the said case was decided in favour of the Sunil Kumar and his name got mutated in the revenue records vide order dated 26.09.2006. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal under Section 210 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was allowed vide order dated 10.12.2007 setting aside the order dated 26.09.2006.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10.12.2007, the Sunil Kumar preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, who dismissed the revision vide order dated 09.09.2010. Thereafter, Sunil Kumar preferred a restoration of the revisional order and he got successful through the order dated 04.02.2011.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in attachment proceedings arrived in the view to continue the attachment order. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Balrampur, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2016.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that both the impugned orders have been wrongly passed by the learned trial court without application of judicial mind as well as without considering the material evidence on record, which is totally abuse of process of law and against the settled preposition of law, as such, the same are liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Yadunandan Singh and Others Vs. Avdhesh Pratap Singh and Others; 1999 (17) LCD 643.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that both the impugned orders have been rightly passed by the learned trial court after considering the entire evidence available on record. They do not require any interference by this Court.
After perusing the material placed before this Court as well as after considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the impugned orders have been passed after due application of judicial mind, which do not require any interference. The facts of the judgment cited by learned counsel for the applicant are totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the result, the prayer for quashing of impugned orders is refused. The dispute between the parties is totally civil and the applicant has a remedy to approach the competent civil court for redressal of his grievance.
With the aforesaid observations, this application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
Saurabh
