# Brahm Singh & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 951
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-08
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brahm-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44090
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

to quash an FIR lodged under Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 IPC at P.S. Sector-58, Noida.

Para 3: The FIR alleges that the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell land for Rs.39 lacs and received
Rs.16 lacs in advance. The informant later discovered the land had already been acquired by NOIDA
authorities.

Para 4: Petitioners argued the land was "Abadi land" (residential) and not acquired. They claimed they were
still ready to execute the sale deed if the respondent honored the agreement.

Para 5: Respondent no. 3 countered that the petitioners knowingly committed fraud by taking money for land
that had been acquired and could not be legally transferred.

Para 6-8: Citing Ajit Singh @ Muraha and Bhajan Lal, the Court noted it cannot interfere with investigations if
a cognizable offence is prima facie visible. The Court found that the FIR allegations did disclose a cognizable
offence.

Para 9: The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed for lack of merit.

Para 10: Following the dismissal, the petitioners requested a direction for the lower court to consider their bail
on the same day, citing the Amrawati and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh precedents.

Para 11-12: The Court initially found this apprehension unfounded as the petitioners had not yet applied for
bail or surrendered. It noted that the law on this is already settled by a 7-Judge Bench.
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Para 13: The Court observed that many litigants feel the Amrawati guidelines are not being followed by
District Courts, leading to a "flood" of petitions in the High Court seeking the same directions.

Para 14-15: The Court highlighted that circulars (2004 and 2014) had already been issued by the Registrar
General to all judicial officers to ensure strict compliance with the Amrawati judgment.
Para 16: The Court expressed frustration that despite circulars, these petitions remain a "regular feature." It
ruled that the Amrawati guidelines must be followed for all accused, whether or not they have a specific High
Court order.

Para 17-18: Sessions Judges are directed to ensure compliance. The Court warned that "adverse inference"
and "appropriate action" would be taken against judicial officers who fail to follow these binding precedents.

Para 19: The Registrar General is ordered to circulate this judgment to all Sessions Judges in Uttar Pradesh
for immediate compliance.

List of Citations:

Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others, (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others, (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, (AIR 1992 SC 604)
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, (1994) 4 SCC 260 / (1994 Cr. L.J. 1981)
Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P., (2004 (57) ALR 290) / (Cri. Misc. Application No.
2154 of 1995)
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P., (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC))
Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P., (1995 (32) ACC 375)
Munawwar and others Versus State of U.P. and another, (Criminal Misc. Application No. 21679 of
2014)

## Text

7 All. Brahm Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
951
20. No costs.
------------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.- 15609 Of 2016

Brahm Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shri Chandra Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Shri D.S. Pandey

Held -

Para 1-2: The Court heard counsel for the petitioners, respondent no. 3, and the State. The petitioners sought
to quash an FIR lodged under Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 IPC at P.S. Sector-58, Noida.

Para 3: The FIR alleges that the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell land for Rs.39 lacs and received
Rs.16 lacs in advance. The informant later discovered the land had already been acquired by NOIDA
authorities.

Para 4: Petitioners argued the land was "Abadi land" (residential) and not acquired. They claimed they were
still ready to execute the sale deed if the respondent honored the agreement.

Para 5: Respondent no. 3 countered that the petitioners knowingly committed fraud by taking money for land
that had been acquired and could not be legally transferred.

Para 6-8: Citing Ajit Singh @ Muraha and Bhajan Lal, the Court noted it cannot interfere with investigations if
a cognizable offence is prima facie visible. The Court found that the FIR allegations did disclose a cognizable
offence.

Para 9: The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed for lack of merit.

Para 10: Following the dismissal, the petitioners requested a direction for the lower court to consider their bail
on the same day, citing the Amrawati and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh precedents.

Para 11-12: The Court initially found this apprehension unfounded as the petitioners had not yet applied for
bail or surrendered. It noted that the law on this is already settled by a 7-Judge Bench.
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Para 13: The Court observed that many litigants feel the Amrawati guidelines are not being followed by
District Courts, leading to a "flood" of petitions in the High Court seeking the same directions.

Para 14-15: The Court highlighted that circulars (2004 and 2014) had already been issued by the Registrar
General to all judicial officers to ensure strict compliance with the Amrawati judgment.
Para 16: The Court expressed frustration that despite circulars, these petitions remain a "regular feature." It
ruled that the Amrawati guidelines must be followed for all accused, whether or not they have a specific High
Court order.

Para 17-18: Sessions Judges are directed to ensure compliance. The Court warned that "adverse inference"
and "appropriate action" would be taken against judicial officers who fail to follow these binding precedents.

Para 19: The Registrar General is ordered to circulate this judgment to all Sessions Judges in Uttar Pradesh
for immediate compliance.

List of Citations:

Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others, (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others, (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, (AIR 1992 SC 604)
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, (1994) 4 SCC 260 / (1994 Cr. L.J. 1981)
Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P., (2004 (57) ALR 290) / (Cri. Misc. Application No.
2154 of 1995)
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P., (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC))
Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P., (1995 (32) ACC 375)
Munawwar and others Versus State of U.P. and another, (Criminal Misc. Application No. 21679 of
2014)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
&
Hon'ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.S. Pandey,
learned counsel for respondent no.3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused record.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. Dated
11.06.2016 in Case Crime No. 361 of 2016 under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. at Police
Station Sector-58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that F.I.R. was lodged by informant, respondent no.3,
Surendra against petitioners alleging that an agreement to sell was executed by petitioner nos. 1 and
2, namely, Brahm Singh and Budhram on 7.5.2014 in his favour by which it was agreed that sale
deed would be executed of Khasra No. 324 situated in Village Bishanpur, District Gautam Budh
Nagar within three months for total consideration of Rs.39 lacs for which he also made a part
payment of Rs.11 lacs and further gave Rs.5 lacs to petitioner nos.1 and 2. Petitioner no.3, Sant
Ram is a witness of said agreement to sell. It is further alleged that when respondent no.3 required
7 All. Brahm Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
953
petitioner nos.1 and 2 to execute sale deed, he came to know that said land has been acquired by
NOIDA authorities, hence he lodged F.I.R. against petitioners for the aforesaid offences at the
concerned police station.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that it was the respondent no.3 who has
not come forward to honour the agreement to sell and the allegation of respondent no.3 that plot in
question has been acquired by NOIDA authorities is absolutely incorrect as the same being Abadi
land, the NOIDA authorities have not acquired the same. He submitted that petitioners are still
ready to execute the sale deed provided terms and conditions of agreement to sell is honoured by
respondent no.3.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 has vehemently opposed argument of
learned counsel appearing for petitioners and has submitted that as the land in question has been
acquired by NOIDA authorities and he was also not informed about said fact and Rs.11 lacs has
been given by him to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and further Rs.5 lacs has also been parted with but
petitioners themselves have not come forward to execute the sale deed in view of agreement to sell
entered into between the parties. In spite of the fact that land has been acquired by NOIDA
authorities, petitioners played fraud upon respondent no.3 and they fraudulently and dishonestly
have taken Rs. 16 lacs from him knowing fully that said agreement to sell cannot be executed.

6. The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006
(56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and
others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying
arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the
F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case
as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that observations and directions
contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC
260 contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under
article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach
whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or
action under the contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to
appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution as an alternative to
anticipatory bail which is not invokable in the State of U.P. attended with further observation that
what is not permissible to do directly cannot be done indirectly.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought forth anything cogent or
convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations
contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to
investigate the case.
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the
allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and, therefore, no ground is
made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.

9. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

10. After passing of aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a
direction be given to courts below for consideration of bail of the petitioners in the light of 7
Judges' Bench decision in the case of Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P. reported in
2004 (57) ALR 290 and as approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap
Singh versus State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). It is submitted by him that it is
prevalent practice in District Court at Gautam Budh Nagar as well as in other district courts of the
State that bail applications normally filed are not being heard and disposed of in the light of
Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra) and are posted for some other date
and the accused has to go to jail unnecessarily and his fundamental right to liberty as enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Hence necessary direction be given to
courts below by this Court.

11. We have examined the above contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and find
that said apprehension of petitioners' counsel appears to be unfounded as the petitioners have
neither yet moved bail application before the court below nor surrendered.

12. The law in this regard has been settled by 7 Judges' Bench decision dated 15.10.2004 in
the case of Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra) and is not
being followed by the courts below, hence the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for a
direction to be given therefor. Moreover, there is no material before us to accept the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioners in the instant case that the law which has been propounded by 7
Judges' Bench decision in the case of Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also
approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of
U.P. (supra) are not being followed in the State of U.P. also appears to be not correct as we have
not come across any such case that law of 7 Judges' Bench decision in the case of Amrawati and
another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra) has been placed by the accused before
court below and the same was not complied with by the courts below. Therefore, said prayer is also
hereby refused.

13. Before parting with the case we find to observe that apprehension which is in the mind
of legal fraternity and the litigants in the concerned district of the State that law which has been
settled by 7 Judges' Bench decision in the case of Amrawati and another Versus State of
U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh
versus State of U.P. (supra) is not being followed by the District Courts appears to be some time
7 All. Brahm Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
955
correct also as this Court is flooded with criminal misc. Writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of
Constitution of India, 482/483 Cr.P.C. Applications and criminal revisions. When such petitions are
being rejected on merits, very often prayer is made by learned counsel for the parties that direction
be given to the court below to consideration bail application in the light of 7 Judges' Bench
decision in the case of Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra) and
it has become a normal feature these days because some slackness on the part of courts below in
not following guidelines and directions given in 7 Judges' Bench decision in the case of Amrawati
and another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra).

14. We find that after passing of judgement in 7 Judges' Bench decision in the case of
Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra) a circular has also been
issued by Registrar General of this Court to the judicial officers in judgeship for their guidance vide
C.L. No.44/2004 Dated: 16th October, 2004 for strict compliance of the directions given by the
Hon'ble Court in Cri.Misc. Application No.2154 of 1995 (Smt. Amarawati and another Vs.
State of U.P.) and the same is quoted below:

"I am directed to say that the Full Bench comprising of seven Judges of the Court
in Cri.Misc. Application No.2154 of 1995-Smt. Amarawati and another Vs. State of U.P. has
considered to following questions:-

1. Whether the arrest of an accused is a must if cognizable offence is disclosed in
the FIR or in a criminal complaint;

2. Whether the High Court can direct the Subordinate Courts to decide the Bail
Application on the same day it is filed; and

3. Whether the case Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No.3643 of
1992, reported in 1995 (32) ACC 375, has been correctly decided by the five Judges Full Bench of
this Court.
Upon consideration of the above questions, the Full Bench has ordered as under:-

(1) Even if cognizable offence is disclosed, in the FIR or complaint the arrest of the
accused is not a must, rather the police officer should be guided by the decision of the Supreme
Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 Cr. L.J. 1981 before deciding whether to make an
arrest or not.

(2) The High Court should ordinarily not direct any Subordinate Court to decide
the bail application the same day, as that would be interfering with the judicial discretion of the
Court hearing the bail application. However, as stated above, when the bail application is under
Section 437 Cr.P.C. ordinarily the Magistrate should himself decide the bail application the same
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

day, and if he decides in a rare and exceptional case not to decide it on the same day, he must
record his reasons in writing. As regards the application under 439 Cr.P.C., it is in the discretion of
the learned Sessions Judge considering the facts and circumstances whether to decide the bail
application the same day or not, and it is also in his discretion to grant interim bail the same day
subject to the final decision on the bail application later.

(3) The decision in Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U.P. (supra) is incorrect and is
substituted accordingly by this judgment.

I am, therefore, directed to send herewith a copy of the judgement and order dated
15.10.2004 passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Cri. Misc. Application No. 2154 of
1995,aforesaid for your information and strict compliance of the directions as contained therein.
The directions of the Court may kindly be brought to the notice of all the Judicial Officers in the
Judgeship for their guidance."

15. But filing of writ petitions before this Court for this purpose shows that guidelines are
not being strictly complied with by the courts below. Moreover, seeing slackness on the part of the
courts below in not complying with the directions issued in 7 Judges' Bench decision in the case of
Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra). Learned Single Judge of
this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.21679 of 2014 (Munawwar and others Versus
State of U.P. and another), after considering all aspects of aforesaid non compliance, passed order
dated 3.7.2014, disposing of 482 Cr.P.C. application wherein a prayer was made for consideration
of bail application expeditiously, if possible on the same day in the light of 7 Judges' decision in the
case of Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra). Learned Single Judge,
seeing a large number of such petitions coming before him, appears to have heard learned members
of bar and their contentions for justifying the prayer seeking direction from this Court for
expeditious disposal of bail application in the light of 7 Judges' Bench decision in the case of
Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra) has also rejected said prayer and
had once again directed courts below in State of Uttar Pradesh through Registrar General for strict
compliance of guidelines 7 Judges' Bench decision in the case of Amrawati and another Versus
State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap
Singh versus State of U.P. (supra) in letter and spirit and also gave direction that said judgement be
transmitted to the District Judges of all judgeships in Uttar Pradesh through Registrar General
forthwith, who in pursuance of the same issued Circular Letter No.12869/Admin.'G-II' Dated:
Allahabad: 04.09.2014, for compliance of order dated 03.07.2014, passed by this Court in
Criminal Misc. Application (482) No.21679 of 2014(Munawwar and others Versus State of
U.P. and another) which is quoted below:-

"Sir,
7 All. Brahm Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
957
While deciding the above mentioned Criminal Misc. Application Hon'ble Court
has taken a serious note upon not following up the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench
of this Court in the matter of Smt. Amarawati (supra) and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter
of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (supra) in connection with considering the applications of the bail.

It is therefore directed by Hon'ble Court that the guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and by the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh
(supra) respectively be followed up in letter and spirit.

I am, therefore, directed to request you to circulate a copy of the enclosed order
dated 03.07.2014, passed by Hon'ble Court in Criminal Misc. Application (482) No.21679 of 2014
titled Munawwar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another amongst all the Judicial Officers
working under your supervision and control highlighting those aspect which require compliance by
them."

16. It is very surprising and painful to note that in spite of issuance of two circulars in
compliance of this Court's order, petitions are regularly coming before this Court and written or
oral prayer is being made seeking direction for consideration of bail in the light of 7 Judges' Bench
decision in the case of Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as well as by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra). Such
petitions have become regular feature and has flooded High Court in its various criminal
jurisdictions, filing of such petitions has to be discouraged as the law has already been settled in 7
Judges' Bench decision in the case of Amrawati and another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also
approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of
U.P. (supra), hence no separate order is required to be passed in each and every case for a direction
of this Court. Decisions of the Full Bench of this Court as well as of Hon'ble Apex Court are
binding upon courts below which have to be followed by them in letter and spirit and this Court
cannot allow such petitions and prayer made therein on behalf of accused who can approach this
Court and deny such benefit of said order to the accused who could not approach this Court.
Therefore, time has come that this Court in order to discourage such types of petitions for a
direction of bail in the light of 7 Judges' Bench decision in the case of Amrawati and another
Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra) must pass appropriate direction/order in
the matter so that precious time of this Court is not wasted in passing of innocuous orders in each
and every case. Hence we are of the opinion that law which has been settled for consideration of
bail application expeditiously by 7 Judges' Bench decision in the case of Amrawati and another
Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra) shall be complied with strictly in letter and
spirit by the subordinate courts all over the State irrespective of fact that accused has obtained such
orders from this Court or not and decide the same as soon as the same is filed before it in
accordance with law as has been laid down in 7 Judges' Bench decision in the case of Amrawati
and another Versus State of U.P.(supra) as also approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. (supra), failing which adverse inference
would be drawn and necessary action may be taken against erring officers of Subordinate Courts.

17. The Sessions Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh are also directed to ensure that
aforesaid guidelines which are binding on the courts below are followed in letter and spirit, failing
which adverse inference would be drawn against erring officers and this Court would be compelled
to take appropriate action against them, if any non-compliance is found in this regard.

18. Moreover, there is no rule of law that a judgement of the Apex Court and this Court, if
not strictly complied by the courts below, a petition or an application may be entertained by this
Court and order be passed for getting the same complieSd with.

19. Let a copy of this order be circulated forthwith through Registrar General to all the
Session Judges in State of Uttar Pradesh who shall also circulate the same to all the concerned
Judicial Officers in that Judgeship for necessary compliance.
------------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No.- 16066 Of 2015
&
Writ C No.- 15949 Of 2015

Nehru International Public School (Nips) & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Noida & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
1.Shri Shri Chandan Sharma, Shri Sunil Kumar Bharti
2.Shri P.H. Vashishtha

Counsel for the Respondents:
1.Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri H.P. Vashishtha, Shri Praveen Singh, S.C.
2.Shri Shivam Yadav

Held -

Challenge to Cancellation and Sealing Orders
The petitioners challenged two orders issued by NOIDA (dated 24.2.2015 and 18.3.2015) which cancelled a
1990 lease deed and ordered the sealing and resumption of Plot No. U-01, Sector 11. NOIDA alleged that the