# Aman Deep Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1003
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 9198 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aman-deep-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50910
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 145, 145-(1) & 482 -
Constitution of India,1950 - Article - 227-
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing of the
impugned order of property attachment under
Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. as well as the entire
criminal proceedings - a suit is pending
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
between Applicant and Opposite party no. 2
with regards to a 'Hari Nikunj Asharam' exists in
two separate buildings - police submitted report
- strained situation on the spot - Magistrate
passed preliminary order of attachment of
property u/s 145(1) Cr.P.C. during pendency of
dispute - applicant argued that a Civil Suit is
pending and an interim 'status quo order' is
exist provided by the High Court as such
impugned criminal proceedings is unjustified by
citing precedents like Ram Sumer Puri Mahant
and Amresh Tiwari,- applicant further contended
that possession issues should be resolved
exclusively by the civil court, especially since the
Ameen report and trial court had acknowledged
the applicant's possession - The opposite party
countered that mere pendency of a civil suit
does not bar Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings in
the absence of effective interim relief or final
adjudication - relying upon the judgment
passed in the case of 'Mohd. Shakir Vs St. of
U.P. & ors.' wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that during the pendency of a civil suit
concerning property, criminal proceedings under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. should be dropped without
the Magistrate issuing findings or interim
directions, leaving all matters to the civil court -
Applying this principle, Court held that, the
preliminary order passed u/s 145(1) Cr.P.C. is
unjustified during the ongoing civil suit and
existing interim order from the High Court -
Since the civil court had already acknowledged
the applicant's possession, albeit not peaceful or
legal, the continuation of parallel criminal
proceedings was deemed an abuse of process -
Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned
order and allowed the application with liberty to
the parties to seek remedies through the civil
court during the suit's pendency.
(Para - 9, 10, 11)
Application Disposed of. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

3 All. Aman Deep Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1003
alias Palla v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2010) 10 SCC 123. The issue was if the
case on the police challan had to be tried
together with the complaint carrying a
cross-version or just the police case tried in
accordance with the provisions of subSections (1) and (2) of Section 210 of the
Code. It was held in Pal alias Palla
(supra):

"30. The facts of the case also
warrant that the two trials should be
conducted by the same Presiding Officer in
order to avoid conflict of decisions. As was
observed in Harjinder Singh case [(1985) 1
SCC 422 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 93] clubbing
and consolidating the two cases, one on a
police challan and the other on a
complaint, if the prosecution versions in the
two
cases
are
materially
different,
contradictory
and
mutually
exclusive,
should not be consolidated but should be
tried together with the evidence in the two
cases being recorded separately, so that
both the cases could be disposed of
simultaneously."

22. Since in cross-cases, the versions
would
be
mutually
exclusive
and
conflicting decision is to be eschewed, the
two cases are to be tried together by the
same Judge recording evidence separately
in both the trials. And, as held in Nathi
Lal, judgment must be pronounced by the
same learned Judge, one after the other, to
borrow the words of their Lordships.

23. In view of these facts, this Court
finds that the impugned order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable
and deserves to be quashed.

24. In the result, this application
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Bulandshahr
dated 09.02.2023 is hereby quashed. It is
ordered that proceedings of Complaint
Case No.523 of 2019, Kripa Devi vs.
Ravikant and others, under Sections 323,
354, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khurja
Dehat, District Bulandshahr pending before
the learned Magistrate, shall be called by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.12, Bulandshahr and tried by the same
Judge, though separately, where evidence
would be recorded in each case, also
separately. The judgment shall, however,
be pronounced by the same learned Judge,
one after the other, bearing in mind the
guidance in this judgment and the law.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1003
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 9198 of 2021

Aman Deep Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri K.S. Tiwari, Sri Amber Khanna, Sri Raj
Kumar Khanna, Sri Vivek Tiwari

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, Sri Santosh
Kumar Pandey, Sri Shaeshadri Trivedi, Sri
Satish Trivedi (Sr. Advocate)

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 145, 145-(1) & 482 -
Constitution of India,1950 - Article - 227-
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing of the
impugned order of property attachment under
Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. as well as the entire
criminal proceedings - a suit is pending
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
between Applicant and Opposite party no. 2
with regards to a 'Hari Nikunj Asharam' exists in
two separate buildings - police submitted report
- strained situation on the spot - Magistrate
passed preliminary order of attachment of
property u/s 145(1) Cr.P.C. during pendency of
dispute - applicant argued that a Civil Suit is
pending and an interim 'status quo order' is
exist provided by the High Court as such
impugned criminal proceedings is unjustified by
citing precedents like Ram Sumer Puri Mahant
and Amresh Tiwari,- applicant further contended
that possession issues should be resolved
exclusively by the civil court, especially since the
Ameen report and trial court had acknowledged
the applicant's possession - The opposite party
countered that mere pendency of a civil suit
does not bar Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings in
the absence of effective interim relief or final
adjudication - relying upon the judgment
passed in the case of 'Mohd. Shakir Vs St. of
U.P. & ors.' wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that during the pendency of a civil suit
concerning property, criminal proceedings under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. should be dropped without
the Magistrate issuing findings or interim
directions, leaving all matters to the civil court -
Applying this principle, Court held that, the
preliminary order passed u/s 145(1) Cr.P.C. is
unjustified during the ongoing civil suit and
existing interim order from the High Court -
Since the civil court had already acknowledged
the applicant's possession, albeit not peaceful or
legal, the continuation of parallel criminal
proceedings was deemed an abuse of process -
Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned
order and allowed the application with liberty to
the parties to seek remedies through the civil
court during the suit's pendency.
(Para - 9, 10, 11)
Application Disposed of. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -
1. Ram Sumer Puri Mahant (appellant) Vs St. of
U.P. & ors.(respondent) - AIR 1985 Supreme
Court 472,

2. Amresh Tiwari (appellant) Vs Lalta Pradad
Dubey & ors.(respondents) - AIR 2000 Supreme
Court 1504,

3. Jhunamal @ Devandas Vs St. of M.P. & ors.-
AIR 1988 Supreme Court 173,
4. Sanjay Kumar Vs VI Additional District Judge,
Bareilly decided vide order dated 16.01.1996 -
1996 1 AWC 277,

5. Sanjay Sahai Vs St. of U.P. & anr.- application
U/S 482 No.36518 of 2022 - decided on
19.11.2022,

6. Mohd. Shakir Vs St. of U.P. & ors.[2022 Live
Law (SC) 727],

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Satish Trivedi (Senior Advocate) assisted
by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 as well as
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present applicant has invoked
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
beseeching
the
quashing of the order dated 04.03.2021
passed by City Magistrate, Mathura, under
Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. in Case No.35 of
2021 (Aman Deep Singh vs. Adarsh Pal
Gupta) and entire proceeding of said case
under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

3. Facts culled out from the record
reveals that the property in question known
as Hari Nikunj Ashram exist in two
separate buildings situated at Sri Radha
Rani Anna Kshetra, Sri Banke Bihari
Colony, Vrindavan, Mathura. Police has
submitted report dated 02.03.2021 with an
averment that the first party (applicant
herein) and the second party (contesting
opposite party herein) are claiming their
right, title and possession over the property
in question, therefore, considering the
strained situation on spot both the parties
may be summoned and Ashram (property
in question) may be attached till the
decision with respect to the right and
possession of parties over there, so that,
3 All. Aman Deep Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1005
law and order could prevail. Considering
the police report, learned Magistrate, by
order
dated
04.02.2021,
has
passed
preliminary order under Section 145 (1)
Cr.P.C. calling upon the parties to present
their respective cases with respect to the
possession and title over the property in
question, which is under challenge before
this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has hammered the preliminary order under
Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. on the ground of
pendency of the Civil Suit No.15 of 2021
and submitted that the property in question
namely Hari Nikunj Ashram is run under
the supervision and control of Panchayati
Akhada Nirmal. Owing to disturbance in
the possession of Panchayat Akhada
Nirmal created by the opposite party no.2
(second party in proceeding under Section
145 Cr.P.C.), Panchayati Akhada Nirmal
along with Hari Nikunj Ashram has filed a
civil suit being O.S. No.15 of 2021 dated
06.01.2021
for
permanent
prohibitory
injunction against the opposite party no.2
herein. Considering delay in decision on
the interim injunction application plaintiff
has approached before this Court by
moving a petition being mater Under
Article 227 No.115 of 2021. Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, vide order dated
13.01.2021, has disposed of the said
petition with a direction to decide the
interim injunction application (7-C) within
a period of one months, however, interim
protection for maintaining status-quo was
granted as well for a period of two months
or till the decision on the aforesaid
application, whichever is earlier. During
pendency of the aforesaid civil suit,
preliminary order dated 04.03.2021 under
Section 145 (1) has been passed on the
basis of police report dated 02.03.2021.
Interim injunction application was rejected
by order dated 09.09.2021 (AnnexureC.A.1), however, Misc. Appeal No.28 of
2021 is still pending against said rejection
order. It has been emphasized that during
the existence of interim order passed by
Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated
13.01.2021, and pendency of the civil suit
which was filed on 06.01.2021, learned
Magistrate had inherent lack of jurisdiction
to entertain the police report and pass
preliminary order under Section 145 (1)
Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the
possession of the first party (applicant
herein) is evident from the Ameen report
dated 14.01.2021 submitted in the civil suit
and the observation made by the trial court
in its order dated 09.09.2021. It is further
submitted that in the light of the fact that
the civil suit was pending before the court
competent and opposite party no.2 has a
remedy to file an appropriate application
for the possession and appoint a receiver
for the purposes of protection of the
property
in
question,
there
is
no
justification
of
continuing
a
parallel
proceeding in criminal side under Section
145 Cr.P.C. In support of the his
submission
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant has relied upon and case of Ram
Sumer Puri Mahant (appellant) vs. State
of U.P. and others (respondent), AIR 1985
Supreme Court 472, and Amresh Tiwari
(appellant) vs. Lalta Pradad Dubey and
others (respondents), AIR 2000 Supreme
Court 1504.

5. Per contra learned counsel for
private opposite party no.2 has vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the applicant and
contended that mere pendency of the civil
suit between the parties is not sufficient
ground to drop the proceeding under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. It is further contended
that no interim protection has been granted
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the present applicant at any stage of civil
litigation, even, interim protection granted
by Hon'ble High Court was vacated after
two months from the date of its order i.e.
13.01.2021. In absence of any interim order
or final decision from the court competent
with respect to the right and tile over the
property in question, the initiation of
proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
cannot be said to be illegal. It is further
contended that the applicant has still an
opportunity to contest before the Magistrate
concerned by way of filing their objection
and adducing evidence in support of his
case. Learned counsel for private opposite
party has relied upon the following cases :-

(I) Jhunamal @ Devandas vs.
State of M.P. and others, AIR 1988
Supreme Court 173;

(II)
Sanjay
Kumar
vs.
VI
Additional District Judge, Bareilly decided
by co-ordinate Bench of this court on
16.01.1996, 1996 1 AWC 277;

(III) Sanjay Sahai vs. State of
U.P. and another decided by co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated
19.11.2022 passed in application U/S 482
No.36518 of 2022.

6. Having considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perusal of record, it is
manifested that property in question is
known as Hari Nikunj Ashram. Present
applicant (first party) is claiming his right
and title over the property in question on
the basis of registered sale deed and the gift
deed said to have been executed by then
owners of the property in question in
favour of the predecessor in the interest of
the applicant herein. However, opposite
party no.2 is claiming his right and title
over the property in question through
separate society. At this juncture, it would
not be befitting to consider this aspect of
the matter which relates to the right and
title of the parties and the same is subjudice
before the civil court in Original Suit No.15
of 2021. Admittedly, Original Suit No.15
of 2021 has been filed on 16.01.2021.
However, having considered the delay in
decision
on
the
interim
injunction
application (7-C), present applicant has
invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this
Court by way of filing a petition under
Article 227 No.115 of 2021. Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated
13.01.2021 has disposed of the aforesaid
petition with a direction to decide the
interim injunction application (Paper No.7C) within a period of one month, however,
for a period of two months or till the
decision
on
the
interim
injunction
application, whichever is earlier, parties
were directed to maintain status-quo.
During the existence of two months
protection for maintaining status-quo and
the pendency of the suit, police has
submitted report dated 02.03.2021, which
was taken into account while passing the
preliminary order under Section 145 (1)
Cr.P.C. Thus, order impugned has been
passed not only during pendency of the suit
but also during existence of the interim
order granted by this Court. Apart from that
while rejecting the interim injunction
application, vide order dated 09.09.2021,
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Mathura
has
made
an
observation
acknowledging the possession of the
present applicant over the property in
question, however, he has refused to grant
interim injunction on the ground that
plaintiff/applicant has failed to prove his
possession legal. Learned Civil Court
might has not passed interim injunction in
favour of the present applicant, however, in
my considered opinion, his observation
with respect to the possession of the present
3 All. Aman Deep Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1007
applicant over the property in question
cannot be ignored particularly for the
purposes of parallel criminal proceeding
under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. Opposite
party no.2 herein has been arrayed as
defendant no.1 in the Original Suit No.15
of 2021 and he has an ample opportunity to
move an appropriate application before the
Civil Court to get injunction in his favour
with respect to the property in question
along with the counter claim to establish
his legal right and title over there. On the
premise of pendency of the civil suit which
has already been instituted on 06.01.2021
prior to the police report dated 02.01.2021
and preliminary order dated 04.01.2021
under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C., there is no
justification
to
continue
the
parallel
criminal proceeding under Section 145
Cr.P.C. to examine the possession of the
parties over the property in question. In the
matter of Amrish Tiwari (supra) proceeding
under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was dropped by
learned Magistrate considering the pendency of
the civil suit, however, same was reversed by the
higher court. Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld
the order passed by learned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and held that multiplicity of the
litigation should be avoided as it is not in the
interest of the parties and the public time would be
wasted over meaningless litigation. It is further
observed that when possession is being examined
by the civil court and the parties are in a position to
approach the civil court for adequate protection of
the property during pendency of the dispute, the
parallel proceeding i.e. under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
should not continue. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
said case has considered the ratio decided by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram
Sumer Puri Mahant (supra). For ready reference
relevant paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 of the
judgement passed in the case of Amresh Tiwari
(supra) is quoted hereinbelow:-

"12. The question then is whether
there is any infirmity in the order of the S.D.M.
discontinuing the proceedings under Section 145
Criminal Procedure Code. The law on this
subject-matter has been settled by the decision of
this Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant
v. State of U.P., reported in, (1985) 1 SCC 427:
(AIR 1985 SC 472: 1985 Cri LJ 752). In this case
it has been held as follows:

"When a civil litigation is pending for
the property wherein the question of possession is
involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly
any justification for initiating a parallel criminal
proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. There
is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that
the decree of the civil court is binding on the
criminal Court in a matter like the one before us.
Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position
to challenge the proposition that parallel
proceedings should not be permitted to continue
and in the event of a decree of the civil Court, the
Criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke
its jurisdiction particularly when possession is
being examined by the civil court and parties are
in a position to approach the Civil Court for
interim orders such as injunction or appointment
of receiver for adequate protection of the property
during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of
litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor
should public time be allowed to be wasted over
meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied
that
parallel
proceedings
should
not
continue."

13. We are unable to accept the
submission that the principles laid down in
Ram Sumers case (AIR 1985 SC 472: 1985
Cri LJ 752) would only apply if the civil
Court has already adjudicated on the
dispute regarding the property and given a
finding. In our view Ram Sumers case is
laying down that multiplicity of litigation
should be avoided as it is not in the interest
of the parties and public time would be
wasted over meaningless litigation. On this
principle it has been held that when
possession is being examined by the civil
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court and parties are in a position to
approach the civil Court for adequate
protection of the property during the
pendency of the dispute, the parallel
proceedings i.e. Section 145 proceedings
should not continue.

14. Reliance has been placed on
the case of Jhummamal alias Devandas v.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in,
(1988) 4 SCC 452: (AIR 1988 SC 1973:
1989 Cri LJ 82). It is submitted that this
authority lays down that merely because a
civil suit is pending does not mean that
proceedings under Section 145, Criminal
Procedure Code should be set at naught. In
our view this authority does not lay down
any such broad proposition. In this case the
proceedings under Section 145, Criminal
Procedure
Code had resulted in a
concluded order. Thereafter the party, who
had lost, filed civil proceedings. After filing
the civil proceedings he prayed that the
final order passed in the Section 145
proceedings be quashed. It is in that
context that this Court held that merely
because a civil suit had been filed did not
mean that the concluded order under
Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code
should be quashed. This is entirely a
different situation. In this case the civil suit
had been filed first. An Order of status quo
had already been passed by the competent
civil
Court.
Thereafter
Section
145
proceedings were commenced. No final
order had been passed in the proceedings
under Section 145. In our view on the facts
of the present case the ratio laid down in
Ram Sumers case (AIR 1985 SC 472: 1985
Cri LJ 752) (supra) fully applies. We
clarify that we are not stating that in every
case where a civil suit is filed. Section 145
proceedings would never lie. It is only in
cases where civil suit is for possession or
for declaration of title in respect of the
same property and where reliefs regarding
protection of the property concerned can
be applied for and granted by the civil
Court that proceedings under Section 145
should not be allowed to continue. This is
because the civil court is competent to
decide the question of title as well as
possession between the parties and the
orders of the civil Court would be binding
on the Magistrate."

7. In a recent judgement of Hon'ble
Apex Court, viz. Mohd. Shakir vs. State of
U.P. & others [2022 Live Law (SC) 727], it
has been held that during pendency of civil
suit qua property in question, while
dropping the proceeding under Section 145
Cr.P.C., there is no justification for the
learned Magistrate to record any finding or
issue any interim direction. The Magistrate
ought to have left all the relevant aspects
for consideration of the competent civil
court, without recording any finding in the
matter.

8. Having careful consideration to the
ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the matters as discussed above, in the given
facts of the present case, there is no room
of doubt that while the civil suit is pending
between the parties with respect to the
possession and title over the property in
question, parties could avail appropriate
remedy before the civil court concerned
qua their possession and protection of the
property during pendency of the suit.

9. Judgement relied upon by learned
counsel for the respondent does not come
in rescue to his contention. Case of
Jhunamal @ Devandas (supra) has been
distinguished by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
its judgement passed in the case of Amresh
Tiwari (supra). In the matter of Jhunamal
@ Devandas (supra), after culmination of
proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. civil
3 All. Aman Deep Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1009
suit was filed and Hon'ble High Court has
quashed the order passed under Section 145
Cr.P.C. on the ground of pendency of the
civil suit. In this backdrop of the facts,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
concluded proceeding under Section 145
Cr.P.C. should not be set at naught merely
because unsuccessful party has approached
before the civil court. So far as the case of
Sanjay Kumar (supra) is concerned, same is
not much helpful as well to the opposite
party wherein proceeding under Section
145 Cr.P.C. has been held to be valid for
want of adjudicate interim injunction from
the civil court. It has been observed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the cited
case that proceeding under Section 145
Cr.P.C. should be dropped only when the
civil court has passed some effective order
indicating as to which of the parties was
entitled to possession. Apart from that
proceeding should also be dropped when
civil court has appointed a receiver or has
made same arrangement for maintenance of
such property. But, when the civil court
does not clarify the position regarding the
possession of contesting parties by passing
an effective order, the criminal proceeding
are not to be dropped because in that case
both the parties may stake their claim for
the possession and the situation may lead to
the
breach
of
peace.
Applying
the
observation made by co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the given circumstances of the
present case, I am of the opinion that while
deciding the interim injunction application
(Paper No.7-C), learned trial court has
made
unequivocal
observation
acknowledging the possession of the
present applicant over the property in
question, however, refused to grant interim
order on the ground that possession is not
legal. While discussing the prima-facie
case and balance of convenience, learned
trial court has made observation that
possession of the plaintiff (applicant) is for
a short period that too it was restrictive and
was not peaceful. It has also been observed
that possession of the applicant was not in
accordance with law. Thus, learned civil
court has unequivocally indicated the
possession of the plaintiff (applicant
herein) over the property in question that
might be illegal or not peaceful. In the
matter of Sandeep Sahai (supra), coordinate Bench of this Court has declined
to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the
applicant in that matter had an alternative
remedy to approach before the authority
concerned
by
filing
an
appropriate
application/objection
against
the
preliminary order under Section 145 (1)
Cr.P.C.

10. In this conspectus, as above, I am
of the considered view that in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case
wherein at the time of passing the
preliminary order dated 04.05.2021 under
Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C., interim order dated
13.01.2021 passed by Hon'ble High Court
was in existence and civil suit was pending
and, precisely, learned civil court in its
order dated 0909.2020 has indicated the
possession of the plaintiff over the property
in question, there is no justification to keep
the parties indulge in a parallel criminal
proceeding as enunciated under Section
145 Cr.P.C. Ratio decided by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Amresh
Tiwari is still a law of land in the matter
pertaining to proceeding under Section 145
Cr.P.C. This Court found an abuse of
process of court in passing the impugned
preliminary order dated 04.02.2021 under
Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C., therefore, to secure
the ends of justice, same is liable to be
quashed. There is no need to say that the
right, title and possession of the parties
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would be abided by the final outcome of
the civil suit pending before the court
competent and in case of any peculiar
circumstances requiring interim protection
parties can approach before the civil court
for appropriate order.

11. Resultantly, instant application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby
allowed and the preliminary order dated
04.02.2021 passed by City Magistrate,
Mathura, under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. in
Case No.35 of 2021 (Aman Deep Singh vs.
Adarsh Pal Gupta), under challenge before
this Court, is hereby quashed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1010
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 10238 of 2023

Sanjay Verma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Imran Ullah, Sri Sahibe Alam, Sri Vineet
Vikram

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Sections 2, 3 & 23 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 120-B, 201, 302,
328, 404, 406, 411, 419, 420, 427, 441,
447, 467, 471, 504, 506 & 713 - U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Rules, 2021 - Rule 2(b), 2(c),
5, 5(3)(C), 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24
& 26 - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. -
for quashing the criminal proceedings stemming
from a charge-sheet and cognizance order
under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act - FIR -
based on a gang-chart approved by authorities -
alleged that applicant was a gang leader
involved in serious crimes - applicant pleaded
that, the FIR was lodged with mala fide intent,
lacked evidence of gang activity, and violated
procedural rules by including an acquitted case
and omitting required documentation - in
response, the police claimed applicant instilled
societal fear for personal gain, but the applicant
refuted these claims, asserting that the cited
cases were personal in nature and did not meet
the legal criteria for gangsterism - court finds
that,
the
gang-chart
was
prepared
and
approved mechanically without legal justification
or recorded satisfaction, violating procedural
safeguards and constitutional protections under
Article 21 - held that, the proceedings were an
abuse of process and amounted to harassment -
hence, the court quashed the charge-sheet and
cognizance order - therefore, application is
allowed.
(Para - 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Writ Petition No. 6249/2003 Inre: Amar Nath
Dubey Vs St. of U.P.,

2. Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs St. of U.P.; 1987 (34)
ACC 164

3. Vimal Shukla Vs St. of U.P.; 2019 (1) ARC
299,

4. Shubhankar Gupta Vs St. of U.P.; (2019) 1
A.Cr.R.,

5. Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs St. of U.P.; 2007 (2)
ACC 683 Alld.

6. Parvez Vs St. of U.P.; 2021 Crl.J. 4034 (All)
(LB).

7. Shraddha Gupta Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; (2022)
17 S.C.R. 622 (Para 10) (635-B-G),

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)