# and Ram Prasad v. Commissioner and Others reported in 2020

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 562
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 No. 5312 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/and-ram-prasad-v-commissioner-and-others-reported-in-2020-46618
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 420-challenge to-summoning order and
non-bailable warrant-husband of the petitioner
transferred a shop to her wife by registered
sale deed-petitioner was in physical possession
11 All. Smt. Tanveer Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
563
of the said property while the husband of the
petitioner was a tenant since long-complainant
came to know about the transfer of property
when
he
stopped
paying
rent
to
the
complainant
and
on
due
enquiry
from
neighbours and also the office of Sub-registrarlearned trial court on the basis of statements
u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. expressed a prima
facie case is made out-Trial court rightly
observed
the
matter-no
interference
requires.(Para 1 to 16)

The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Randheer Singh Vs The St. of U.P. & ors. CRLA No.
932 of 2021

## Text

562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2020
(113)
ACC
1
and
Ram
Prasad
Vs.
Commissioner and Others reported in 2020
(113) 571, this Court held that mere involvement
in criminal case is no ground for cancellation of
licensee's firearm as well as apprehension of
abuse of arms is not a sufficient ground for
passing of an order of cancellation of licence
under Section 17 of the Act. It has also been
held that in a pending criminal case against the
licence if acquittal has been ordered by criminal
Court then the very basis of the cancellation of
arm licence will vanish.

17. In Ashiq Hussain Vs. Commissioner,
Moradabad & Others reported in 2009 (10)
ADJ 635, this Court has held as under:

"6. The mere involvement in a solitary
criminal case cannot be a ground for
cancellation of a firearm license as held by this
Court in case of Mohd. Haroon Vs. The District
Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar reported in 2003
(1) ACJ 124, unless and until it is shown on the
basis of material on record that there was grave
danger to public law and order. In the instant
case it is only a solitary incident, which was not
arising out of any disturbance of law and order,
that has been made the basis for ordering
cancellation."

18. This Court after considering the
contention raised by learned counsel for the
parties, perusal of record and considering the
case laws mentioned above observed here that in
the present case, petitioner was involved in sole
criminal case and has been acquitted also by
criminal Court by judgment dated 04.04.2015, a
perusal of acquittal order does not show the use
of firearm. The reason for cancellation of the
petitioner's firearm licence mentioned in the
order dated 11.01.2013 has been wiped out.
Respondent no.2 and 3 have failed to consider
the provisions of Section 17 of the Act regarding
revocation of the licence, accordingly, impugned
orders passed by respondent nos.2 and 3 cannot
be sustained.

19. In view of the settled legal position
mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed.
The
order
dated
11.01.2013
passed
by
respondent
no.
2-
District
Magistrate-
Moradabad and appellate order dated 05.09.2013
passed by respondent no.3- Commissioner
Moradabad, District- Moradabad, are hereby set
aside. The matter is remitted back before
respondent no.2 to pass a reasoned and speaking
order afresh for restoring the arms licence of the
petitioner after calling a fresh report in
accordance with law preferably within a period
of two months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order before him.

20. Writ petition is allowed. No orders as
to costs.
----------
(2021)12ILR A562
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 5312 of 2021

Smt. Tanveer Fatima ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Syed Azizul Hasan Rizvi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 420-challenge to-summoning order and
non-bailable warrant-husband of the petitioner
transferred a shop to her wife by registered
sale deed-petitioner was in physical possession
11 All. Smt. Tanveer Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
563
of the said property while the husband of the
petitioner was a tenant since long-complainant
came to know about the transfer of property
when
he
stopped
paying
rent
to
the
complainant
and
on
due
enquiry
from
neighbours and also the office of Sub-registrarlearned trial court on the basis of statements
u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. expressed a prima
facie case is made out-Trial court rightly
observed
the
matter-no
interference
requires.(Para 1 to 16)

The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

Randheer Singh Vs The St. of U.P. & ors. CRLA No.
932 of 2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.)

1. This petition has been filed praying for
quashing of the summoning order dated
23.09.2019 passed by the opposite party no.2 as
well as the order issuing non-bailable warrant
against the petitioner dated 03.12.2021.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her
husband Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri transferred a
commercial property/shop, which formed part of
house no. 439/167/05, Khasra No. 215 at
Mohalla
Tahseenganj,
District
Lucknow,
measuring area about 9.293 square meters in the
name of the petitioner, it being his ancestral
abadi property in his ownership and physical
possession. A registered sale deed was executed
on
02.03.2016
for
a
consideration
of
Rs.5,00,000/-. The receipts/bills issued by the
Jalkal Vibhag, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow and the
electricity bill in respect of the property all
showed the name of Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri,
the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner is in
physical possession of the said property now
after its transfer from her husband. The opposite
party no.4 is a hardened criminal and at least
five FIRs have been registered against him as he
was indulging in extortion of several persons.
The applicant and her husband were also made
victims of such extortion. The husband of the
petitioner refused to pay, therefore, the opposite
party no.4 filed a false complaint case before the
opposite party no.2 bearing complaint no.
2283/2018, through an application under Section
156 (3) Cr.P.C. in which he recorded a false
statement
under
Section
200
Cr.P.C.
Summoning order was, thereafter, issued by the
learned trial court on 23.09.2019 and the order
of non-bailable warrant was also issued on
03.12.2021 against the applicant and three
others. On the basis of such orders passed by the
learned trial court the police are harassing the
petitioner and her husband.

3. It has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party
no.4 has not filed any civil suit for cancellation
of sale deed of the applicant in any competent
court, but has adopted the criminal proceedings
through filing an application under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. only to overcome limitation
prescribed under the Limitation Act. He has
referred to Article 59 of the Scheduled attached
to the Limitation Act given period of limitation
for cancellation or setting aside of an instrument
or decree or a contract being three years from
the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to
have the instrument or the decree canceled or set
aside or first become known to him.

4. It has been submitted that the sale deed
was executed in the year 2016 and become
known to the opposite party no.3 much before he
filed the application before the learned trial court
under Section 156 Cr.P.C. The subject matter in
question is purely civil in nature. Learned trial
court without application of judicial mind has
entertained the application and treated it as a
complaint case and issued summoning orders
and also non-bailable warrant thus threatening
the liberty of the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 932 of 2021, 'Randheer Singh vs. The State
of U.P. & Others decided on 02.09.2021 to say
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly
deprecated the practice of initiating criminal
proceedings where the dispute was purely civil
in nature.

6. This Court has perused a copy of the
application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by
the opposite party no. 4 which is 'Waqf Sajjadia
Kadeem va Jadeed, situated at Sajjadia Nagar
Colony, Alam Nagar va Tahsinganj, District
Lucknow, Registration No. 941-42, "arrayed
through" its Daroga/Care Taker, one Mohammad
Askari Ali S/o Late Mirza Mohammad Taki,
resident of 439/41, Tehseenganj, P.S. Thakurganj,
Hardoi Road, Lucknow. In the said application the
opposite party no.4 i.e. Waqf Sajjadia Kadeem vs
Jadeed through its Daroga/Care Taker had arrayed
husband of the petitioner as respondent no.1, the
petitioner as respondent no.2 and two other
persons the alleged witnesses of the sale deed as
respondent no.3 and respondent no.4, respectively.
In the said case explanation was given of the locus
of the complainant, Waqf Sajjadia Kadeem vs
Jadeed registered at 941 and 942 of the registration
of Waqf and also the fact that it was the owner and
the landlord of the house no. 439/167/05, and
Landlord of shop Gulshan Motors, Tehseenganj
where the respondent no.1, Mohd. Gulshan
Kashmiri, the husband of the petitioner no.1
herein, was a tenant since long. The receipt of rent
being paid by Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri were also
filed with the application. It was stated in the
complaint that Mohd. Gulshan Kashmiri all of a
sudden stopped paying rent to the complainant. On
due enquiry from neighbors as also from the office
of the Sub-Registrar, it came out that Mohd.
Gulshan Kashmiri has sold the shop in question to
his wife on 02.03.2016. The respondent no.3,
namely, Anish Hakim Rizvi and respondent no.4,
namely, Sayed Mohd. Naki Ali, had put there
signatures as witnesees on the sale deed although
they knew since long that Mohd. Gulshan
Kashmiri was a tenant of the shop in question,
which belonged to the Waqf Sajjadia Kadeem vs
Jadeed as aforesaid. The opposite party no.4 had
sent applications/representations to the Chairman
of the Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board on
17.06.2016, and the Waqf Board had directed him
to initiate proceedings against Mohd. Gulshan
Kashmiri by filing FIR also. Thereafter, requisition
was sent to the District Magistrate and the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Lucknow on 24.10.2016,
on which no heed was paid. Reminders were sent
in September, 2017 also, but no head was paid. On
18.06.2018 the complainant/its Care Taker saw the
respondents making construction on the property
in question, he tried to stop them from raising such
construction as the property belongs to the Waqf
but they did not listen and therefore, the complaint
was being filed before the learned Magistrate.

7. The date of institution of the
complainant
case
is
23.07.2018,
the
documentary evidence i.e. rent receipts dated
23.03.2016, 22.05.2016 and 21.10.2016 were
attachted alongwith such complaint relate to
letters sent by the Care Taker on 24.10.2016 and
04.09.2017 to the Uttar Pradesh Shia Central
Waqf Board and to Senior Superintendent of
Police to take action and letter sent by the Uttar
Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board to the District
Magistrate dated 04.10.2016 and the reminders
sent thereafter. A copy of the sale deed was also
filed alongwith said application duly supported
by the affidavit. The Rent Receipts have also
been made annexures to the complaint.

8. Learned trial court on the basis of
statements taken under Sections 200 and 202 of
the Cr.P.C. issued the summoning order on
23.09.2019, expressing a prima facie satisfaction
that a case under Section 420 IPC has been made
out by the complainant.

9. It appears that after summons were
issued, the petitioner and her husband did not
appear, and therefore, the learned trial court was
11 All. Smt. Tanveer Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
565
forced to issue process in the form of nonbailable warrant on 03.12.2021.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Randheer Singh (Supra). This Court has
carefully perused the judgement rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the High Court
had dismissed the application of the appellant
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in which he had
prayed for quashing of the proceedings in Case
Crime No. 5973 of 2020, ''State Vs. Rajan
Kumar' under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC,
and the charge sheet and the summoning order.
The facts of the case as mentioned in the
judgement are that one Arjun Dev and his wife,
namely, Bela Rani were recorded tenure holders
of certain plots of land and they executed a
registered Power of Attorney in favour of the
applicant no.1, Rajan Kumar (who had since
died). Rajan Kumar executed sale deed in favour
of the the appellants, Randheer Singh and his
family members on various dates in between
July or August, 2014. The name of the appellant
and others were mutated in the revenue records.
Smt. Beena Srivastava had filed objections
before the Naib Tehsildar which were rejected.
Smt. Beena Srivatava also filed Original Suit
No. 971 of 2014 for cancellation of the Power of
Attorney and sale deed executed by Rajan
Kumar. The suit was dismissed under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by
learned trial court which order was challenged in
the First Appeal which was partly allowed and
the matter remanded to the learned trial court
with a direction that it should be returned to the
plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate
court. Aggrieved by such order of the High
Court Smt. Beena Srivastava had approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court also which Special
Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 08.09.2016. In the application
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the
appellant before the High Court, it has also been
submitted that Smt. Beena Srivastava and her
husband had also filed a Contempt Application,
which was also dismissed by the High Court in
February, 2016.

When Smt. Beena Srivastava could not
get any relief from the trial court right up to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, she filed Writ Petition
No. 12275 of 2016, which was dismissed on
28.03.2016. Smt. Beena Srivastava's son, Dr.
Virat Swaroop Saxena also filed a Contempt
Application which had been dismissed in July,
2006.

Pursuant to the order of the High Court
dated 28.03.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.
12275 of 2016, The appellant, Randheer Singh
instituted an Original Suit No. 608 of 2016
praying for permanent injunction in respect of
the plot in question, and a temporary injunction
was also granted by the learned trial court on
12.04.2016.

Having failed to get relief from
various courts, Smt. Beena Srivastava brought in
other persons into the picture to harass the
appellant, thereafter. The Power of Attorney
holder of Bela Rani, namely, Rajan Kumar
(since deceased) had executed as sale deed in
June, 2017 in favour of the appellant after
receiving
the
sale
consideration.
A
supplementary sale deed was also executed
thereafter on 16.09.2017 and the appellant's
name was mutated in the revenue record. The
respondent No.2 filed an FIR wherein he stated
that the applicant had purchased one house
alongwith courtyard in which shops were also
present from certain persons by way of
registered sale deed and after such sale deed was
executed he came to know that in the meantime
another person, namely, Rajan Kumar (since
deceased) on the basis of a false Power of
Attorney of Bela Rani executed a sale deed to
Randheer Singh(the appellant), whereas Bela
Rani had no right to sell the said house which
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
belonged to Afroz Athar and on the basis of the
same false sale deed, Randheer Singh and Rajan
Kumar were attempting to trespass the house of
the applicant and had broken open the lock, of
which
knowledge
was
drived
by
the
applicant/informant on the following morning
and therefore, the FIR was lodged. Such FIR
was lodged on 16.09.2017.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court after
considering the arguments raised by the counsel
for the appellant and counsel for the respondent
with regard to the scope of interference under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the High Court,
observed that the underlying civil dispute
between the parties was subject matters of
diverse civil proceedings which were pending
between the appellant and the private respondent
in the concerned civil court and the same shall
obviously be decided on their own merits. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question
''whether any criminal offence was disclosed in
the FIR so far as the appellant was concerned'; it
observed that Rajan Kumar (since deceased) the
Power of Attorney holder was also an appellant
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but he had
since died and therefore proceedings had abated
against him. The only allegation against the
appellant was that he had purchased the property
on the basis of a false Power of Attorney
executed by the alleged owner of the property
also in question.

11.

The
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court,
considered the entire history of the civil
litigations that were carried up to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court also by Smt. Beena Srivastava
and her husband on the allegation that Bela Rani
had no title, and that the Power of Attorney in
itself was a false document. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court thereafter referred to several
judgements in paragaraph 26 of its order, where
the Court had considered the meaning of Section
420 of the Cr.P.C. as also Sections 417, 418, 419
and the meaning of fraud, deliberate deception,
"dishonestly" and it came to the conclusion on
the basis thereof, as also judgements rendered
on the scope of interference under Section 482
Cr.P.C. by the High Court, that Section 482
Cr.P.C. is designed to achieve the purpose of
ensuring that criminal proceedings are not
permitted to generate into a weapon of
harassment. It came to the conclusion, on the
facts of the case pleaded before it that the FIR
had not disclosed any offence insofar as
appellant was concerned there was no whisper of
how and in what manner the appellant was
involved in any criminal offence. The charge
sheet was basically vague. It observed that the
High Court should have considered whether the
complaint disclosed a criminal offence insofar as
a nature of the allegation made against the
appellant was concerned, and whether essential
ingredients of the criminal offence were actually
made out? Then, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed in the said case before it that the
dispute was purely of civil nature, which was
given the colour of criminal offence.

12. However, it clarified in pargraph 34
that in a given set of facts a civil or as well as
the criminal offence can be made out
simultaneously and, only because a civil remedy
is available may not be a ground to quash
criminal proceedings.

13. It is clear from the consideration of
facts in the case of Randheer Singh vs. State of
U.P. (Supra) that the Supreme Court has
clarified that only because Civil proceedings or
remedy are available against the particular
transaction, it cannot be said that Criminal
proceedings cannot be initiated if the essential
ingredients and dishonesty are made out under
Section 420 of the Cr.P.C.

14. Insofar as the learned counsel for the
petitioners
arguments
regarding
civil
proceedings being barred by limitation having
been expired and therefore, the FIR was lodged
11 All. Satyendra Kesharwani Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
567
is concerned, this Court has gone through the
Schedule and Article 59 of the Scheduled attached
to Limitation Act relied upon, which is mentioned
under part IV "Suits relating to Decree or an
instrument" and it finds that the limitation of three
years is only from the date of knowledge. In this
case knowledge was drived by the opposite party
no.4, Waqf Sajjadia Kadeem va Jadeed sometime
in 2016, and the application under Section 156(3)
of the Cr.P.C. was lodged on 23.07.2018 after the
U.P. Shia Central Waqf Board sent letter to the
Senior Superintendent of Police and the District
Magistrate on 24.10.2016 for taking appropriate
action for protecting the property of the Waqf
Board.

15. No case has been made by the learned
counsel for petitioner to show interference in the
summoning order or the bailable warrant issued
against her.

16. Accordingly, this petition stands rejected.
----------
(2021)12ILR A567
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 5605 of 2021

Satyendra Kesharwani ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Virendra Kumar Tripathi, Alok Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860Sections 420, 272, 273-quashing of chargesheet-Several persons including the petitioner
was made accused as in the Godown several
bags of broom seeds were found to have been
mixed with cumin seeds-as per opinion given
by the Analyst sample of Phool Jhadoo seeds
was not a food item, and it was noxious for
human consumption as per section 3.1(zz) 11
of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006arguments made by the petitioner that only
because the Food Safety and Standard Act,
2006 was applicable and wrong section has
been applied in the Charge-sheet, the offence
committed by the accused would not washed
away.(Para 1 to 14)

The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs St.
of U.P. & ors., WP No. 8254 of 2010

2. Jeewan Kumar Raut & anr. Vs C.B.I. (2009) 7 UJ
SC 3135

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.)

(1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

(2) This petition has been filed for the
following main prayer:-

" Wherefore, It is most respectfully
prayed that Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to:

(a) To quash the charge sheet filed by
I. O. against the petitioner in case Case Crime
No. 551 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 272, 273
I.P.C. Police Station : Maharajganj, District:
Raibareily, Which is annexed as Annexure No.
7."

(3) It has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had
earlier filed a Petition No. 415 (M/B) of 2020
challenging the FIR which has been dismissed as
infructuous by this Court on 07.12.2021 as