# Furhe Khan @ Fakir Mohammad Khan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 1185
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-21
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 6461 of 2019
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/furhe-khan-fakir-mohammad-khan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50516
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 116 & 207 - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Sections 94 & 151 -
Dispute concerning land likely to cause
breach of peace - Procedure - Scope of -
Land was in name of applicants and
opposite
party
no.
5,
co-sharers
in
property and property sold in favour of
opposite party no. 4, by registered sale
deed, dispute arose with apprehension
that applicants will make hindrance in
peaceful possession of opposite party no.
4 - Suit for partition instituted by
applicants no. 1 and 3 before SubDivisional Officer, decided in favour of
opposite party no. 4, thereafter appeal
filed, decided in favour of opposite party
no. 4, interim orders were in existence to
effect that parties shall maintain statusquo - Second appeal pending before Board
of Revenue, interim order continued -
Application u/s 145 (1), Cr.P.C. instituted
by opposite party no. 4, order passed by
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
invoking
jurisdiction u/s 146 (1), Cr.P.C., property
attached ignoring earlier fact - If civil
dispute pending before court of civil
competence, with respect to any property,
no
justification
for
initiating
parallel
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
criminal proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C - In
such circumstances, proceeding under
said section not maintainable - Thus,
impugned orders set aside. (Para 18 to 20,
24)

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Furhe Khan @ Fakir Mohammad Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1185
investigation, charge sheet has been filed
against the applicants and other co-accused
persons. After framing of charge, the Court
recorded statement of injured, P.W.-1Abhishek Tiwari, injured P.W.-2-Smt.
Meena Tiwari and eye witness P.W.-3Jatashankar Tiwari.

12. From perusal of statements of
P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 it transpires
that that on the alleged date, time and place
of occurrence applicants-accused along
with six other co-accused persons, in
furtherance of common intention hurled
abuses to the informant and his mother and
when he prevented them, they started
beating him and his mother with Lathi,
Danda and fists causing fatal injuries. The
incident
was
witnessed
by
P.W.-3
Jatashankar Tiwari.

13. Considering the impugned order
in light of the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-2
and P.W.-3 recorded in the court in the
light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court regarding the summoning of persons
who have not been named in the chargesheet as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
I
find
no
illegality,
irregularity
or
jurisdictional error in the impugned order
passed by the trial court.

14. The Trial Court has rightly passed
the impugned order dated 07.01.2023.
There is no error or illegality in the
impugned order and therefore, this Court
does not find any good ground to interfere
in the impugned order.

15. Accordingly, the application
under section 482 is rejected.

16. Interim order, if any, granted
earlier, stands vacated.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1185
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 6461 of 2019

Furhe Khan @ Fakir Mohammad Khan &
Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Mohan Singh, Rajesh Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Suresh Chandra Srivatava

Criminal Law - U. P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 116 & 207 - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Sections 94 & 151 -
Dispute concerning land likely to cause
breach of peace - Procedure - Scope of -
Land was in name of applicants and
opposite
party
no.
5,
co-sharers
in
property and property sold in favour of
opposite party no. 4, by registered sale
deed, dispute arose with apprehension
that applicants will make hindrance in
peaceful possession of opposite party no.
4 - Suit for partition instituted by
applicants no. 1 and 3 before SubDivisional Officer, decided in favour of
opposite party no. 4, thereafter appeal
filed, decided in favour of opposite party
no. 4, interim orders were in existence to
effect that parties shall maintain statusquo - Second appeal pending before Board
of Revenue, interim order continued -
Application u/s 145 (1), Cr.P.C. instituted
by opposite party no. 4, order passed by
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
invoking
jurisdiction u/s 146 (1), Cr.P.C., property
attached ignoring earlier fact - If civil
dispute pending before court of civil
competence, with respect to any property,
no
justification
for
initiating
parallel
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
criminal proceeding u/s 145, Cr.P.C - In
such circumstances, proceeding under
said section not maintainable - Thus,
impugned orders set aside. (Para 18 to 20,
24)

Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mahant Ram Saran Dass Vs Harish Mohan &
anr. reported in (2001) 10 SCC 758, (Para 2)

2. Mahar Jahan & ors. Vs St. of Delhi & ors.
reported in (2004) 13 SCC 421, (Para 7, 8)

3. Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.reported in (1985) 1 SCC 427, (Para 2)

4. Ashok Kumar Vs St. of Uttarakhand & Ors
reported in (2013) 3 SCC 366, (Para 14, 15)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohan Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Suresh
Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for
opposite party no. 4, Sri Nirmal Kumar
Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Instant application has been filed
with prayer to quash the impugned
proceedings of Computerized Case No.
T201808620302227, State of U.P. Vs
Akhtar & others U/s 145 Cr.P.C pending
in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate
Jamunha,
P.S.
Malhipur,
District
Shravasti as well as the impugned order
dated 05.08.2019 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track
Court-II, Shravasti, in Crl. Revision
No.70/2018, Furhe Khan & others Vs
State of U.P. & others, and impugned
orders
dated
11.07.2018
(U/s
145
Cr.P.C.) & 11.07.2018 (U/ss-145/146
Cr.P.C.) passed by the opposite party no.
2.

3. The factual matrix of the case is
that the land Gata No. 2 measuring area
1.5830 hectares situated in Patpar Ganj,
Tehsil- Jamunaha District- Shravasti was
recorded in the name of the applicant and
the opposite party no. 5, in the revenue
record. On 22.10.2016, the opposite party
no. 5 transferred his share to opposite party
no. 4 by way of executing a registered sale
deed and thereafter, the same was mutated
in favour of opposite party no. 4. On
27.10.2016 the opposite party no. 4 on the
basis of sale deed, started creating
hindrance in the possession of the other
tenure
holders
including
the
present
applicants and the applicant no. 1 filed a
suit for division of holdings, under section
116 of U. P. Revenue Code 2006 before the
Sub-Divisional Officer and after institution of
the aforesaid suit, the Sub-Divisional Officer
passed the order while directing the parties to
maintain status-quo as was existed on
20.10.2016. The opposite party nos. 4 and 5
were also the parties in the aforesaid suit. On
11.05.2018 the partition suit was decided and
on 14.05.2018, the applicants no. 1 and 3
filed an appeal under section 207 of the Code,
2006 before the Divisional Commissioner
Devi Patan Mandal Gonda. The appeal was
admitted and interim order was passed on
22.5.2018 that the parties shall maintain
status quo regarding the property in question.
On 07.06.2018, the opposite party no. 4 filed
writ petition namely Miscellaneous Single
No. 17523 of 2018 (Smt. Shakira Khan vs
State of U.P.), wherein, this Court has passed
the order on 07.06.2018, which is read as
under:-

"Heard Sri Alok Kumar Misra
learned counsel for petitioner.

Notice for opposite party Nos. 1
to 3 has been accepted by the office of
learned Chief Standing Counsel.
8 All. Furhe Khan @ Fakir Mohammad Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1187

In view of the proposed order,
notices to opposite party Nos. 4 to 9 are
dispensed with.

By means of this petition, the
petitioner has assailed the order dated
22.5.2018
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda
whereby the appeal of the opposite party
Nos. 4 and 5 has been admitted and next
date was fixed for 26.6.2018 directing that
the status quo in respect of the property be
maintained till the next date of listing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that he has filed a recall
application seeking recall of the aforesaid
order dated 22.5.2018. He has submitted
that the court concerned may be directed to
decide the recall application on the date
fixed i.e. 26.6.2018.

Under these circumstances, it is
hereby provided that if the petitioner has
already provided the copy of his recall
application
dated
29.5.2018
to
the
appellants, the said application shall be
disposed of by the appellate authority
either on the date fixed i.e. 26.6.2018 or
within a period of one month thereafter.

In view of the aforesaid terms, the
writ petition is disposed of."

4. Vide the aforesaid order, it was
directed
that
the
recall
application
submitted by the opposite party no. 4 shall
be disposed of by the appellate authority
either on the date fixed i.e. 26.06.2018 or
within a period of one month thereafter.

5. After the aforesaid order, the
appellate
court
decided
the
recall
application of the opposite party no. 4, vide
order date 26.10.2018 and upheld the
earlier interim order dated 22.05.2018. The
appeal was, ultimately, decided finally in
favour of the opposite party no. 4 and being
aggrieved the present applicant filed second
appeal before the Board of Revenue,
wherein, the opposite party no. 4 was also
impleaded as a party and after hearing the
parties,
the
order
was
passed
on
05.01.2023, whereby, the parties were
directed to maintain status quo over the
land in question. The matter before the
board of revenue is pending consideration
and the interim order passed vide order
dated 05.01.2023, is still operative.

6. In between the opposite party no. 4
instituted an application under section 145
of Cr.P.C., before the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
and
considering
the
said
application, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
has passed the order and has attached the
property vide order dated 11.07.2018. The
applicants being aggrieved with the order
dated 11.07.2018 filed the revision and the
revisional court also upheld the order dated
11.7.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants
contends that the present applicants and the
opposite party no. 5 are the co-sharers in
property in question. The opposite party no.
5 sold out his share to the opposite party
no. 4 by way of executing a registered sale
deed and thereafter, the dispute in between
the applicants and opposite party no. 4
arose. The matter goes to the SubDivisional Officer for partition, wherein,
the interim order was passed and ultimately
it was decided against the applicants and
thereafter an appeal was filed which was
also decided in favour of the opposite party
nos. 4 and 5, ultimately, the second appeal
has been instituted before the Board of
Revenue, which is pending consideration
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the interim order has been passed,
thereby, directing the parties to maintain
status quo, which is still running.

8. He further submits that from very
beginning when the suit for partition was
instituted
before
the
Sub-Divisional
Officer, the interim order was passed for
maintaining status quo by the parties and
time and again, when the matter went up to
the appellate court, the interim order was
granted while directing the parties to
maintain
status
quo.
Since,
in
the
interregnum period, an application was
moved by the opposite party no. 4 for
attachment of the property and admitting
the same, the property in question, which is
also subject matter before the court of civil
competence, i.e., Board of Revenue, was
attached.

9. He added that once a civil
proceedings with respect to any land or
property is pending before court of civil
competence and there are some interim
orders passed, no application under section
145 (1) of Cr.P.C. would be entertained.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the
applicant supported his contention while
referring the judgment rendered in Mahant
Ram Saran Dass V. Harish Mohan And
Another reported in (2001) 10 SCC 758
and has referred paragraph 2. Paragraph 2
of the aforesaid judgment is quoted
hereinunder:-

"The short question that arises
for consideration is whether in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, a
civil suit for declaration under Section 92
of the Code of Civil Procedure being
pending before the competent forum, the
civil court, the respondent was entitled to
invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
under
Section
145
CrPC,
and
the
Magistrate was entitled to initiate the
proceedings and pass any interim order of
appointment of receiver therein. It is not
disputed that in the civil suit itself the court
has passed interim order of injunction, and
put certain restrictions on the parties with
regard to alienation of the property in
question. It is true that the applicant before
the Magistrate, has not been arrayed as
party-defendant in the civil suit, but that
will not alter the position in any manner
since in our view the civil court being in
seisin of the matter, any appropriate relief
could be obtained from the civil court itself
and the Magistrate had no jurisdiction in
the case in hand to entertain the
application under Section 145, and to pass
any orders thereon. In the circumstances,
the impugned order of the High Court as
well as the proceedings initiated before the
Magistrate under Section 145 CrPC stand
set aside. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly. Needless to mention the status
quo as of today to be maintained to enable
the parties to move the civil court for
appropriate orders."

11. Further he has referred the
judgment rendered in Mahar Jahan And
Others v. State Of Delhi And Others
reported in (2004) 13 SCC 421 and has
referred paragraph 7 and 8 of the aforesaid
judgment. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the
aforesaid
judgment
are
quoted
hereinunder:-

"7. We have simply noted the
contentions raised by the parties. The civil
court, in our opinion, would be the most
appropriate forum to take care of such
grievances and pass such interim order as
would reasonably protect the interests of
both the parties. The civil court may issue
an ad interim injunction, may appoint a
8 All. Furhe Khan @ Fakir Mohammad Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1189
Commissioner or Receiver or may make
any other interim arrangement as to
possession or user of the property which is
the subject-matter of proceedings in the
civil court exercising the power conferred
on it by Sections 94 and 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.

8. In view of what has been stated
hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The
proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are
directed to be quashed. The parties may
approach the civil court. We make it clear
that looking to the relationship of the
parties, the civil court shall feel free to
make such ad interim order as it deems fit
consistently
with
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case without feeling
embarrassed by the limited scope of the suit
which is a suit for permanent injunction."

12. Placing reliance on the judgment
of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs State Of
U.P. And Ors. reported in (1985) 1 SCC
427, he has referred paragraph 2 of the
judgment. Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid
judgment is quoted hereinunder:-

"Challenge in this application is
to the order of the Allahabad High Court
refusing to interfere in its revisional
jurisdiction against an order directing
initiation of proceedings under Section
145, Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code
for short), and attachment of the property
at the instance of respondents 2-5.
Indisputably, in respect of the very property
there was a suit for possession and
injunction being Title Suit No. 87 of 1975
filed in the Court of Civil Judge at Ballia
wherein the question of title was gone into
and by judgment dated February 28, 1981,
the said suit was dismissed. The appellant
was the defendant in that suit. According to
the appellant close relations of respondents
2-5 were the plaintiffs and we gather from
the counter-affidavit filed in this Court that
an appeal has been carried from the decree
of the Civil Judge and the same is still
pending disposal before the appellate
court. The assertion made in the petition
for special leave to the effect that
respondents 2 to 5 are close relations has
not been seriously challenged in the
counter-affidavit. 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 and the order of the learned
Magistrate
should
be
quashed.
We
accordingly allow the appeal and quash the
order of the learned Magistrate by which
the proceeding under Section 145 of the
Code has been initiated and the property in
dispute has been attached. We leave it open
to either party to move the appellate Judge
in the civil litigation for appropriate
1190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interim orders, if so advised, in the event of
dispute relating to possession."

13. Further relying on the judgment of
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand
& Ors reported in (2013) 3 SCC 366, has
referred paragraphs 14 and 15. Paragraphs
14 and 15 of the abovesaid judgment are
quoted hereinunder:-

"14. We find from this case there
is nothing to show that an emergency exists
so as to invoke Section 146(1) and to attach
the property in question. A case of
emergency, as per Section 146 of the Code
has to be distinguished from a mere case of
apprehension of breach of peace. When the
reports indicate that one of the parties is in
possession,
rightly
or
wrongly,
the
Magistrate cannot pass an order of
attachment on the ground of emergency.
The order acknowledges the fact that Ashok
Kumar has started construction in the
property in question, therefore, possession
of property is with the appellant - Ashok
Kumar, whether it is legal or not, is not for
the SDM to decide.

15. We also notice that the
respondent herein has filed a civil suit for
injunction
before
Civil
Judge
(J.D.)
Haridwar
on
02.09.2009
and
an
application for interim injunction is also
pending, on which the civil court has issued
only a notice. An Amin report was called
for and Amin submitted its report on
21.11.2009. Civil suit was filed prior in
point of time, it is for the civil court to
decide as to who was in possession on the
date of the filing of the suit. In any view,
there is nothing to show that there was an
emergency so as to invoke the powers
under Section 146(1) to attach the
property, specially, when the civil court is
seized
of
the
matter.
Under
such
circumstances, we are inclined to set aside
the order passed by the SDM dated
25.11.2009 and the order of the High court
dated 27.03.2012. "

14.

Referring
the
above
said
judgments, he submits that the case of the
present applicants is squarely covered with
the ratio of judgments aforesaid. Therefore,
submission is that proceedings initiated
under section 145 (1) of Cr.P.C. and the
order passed while invoking the jurisdiction
under section 146 of Cr.P.C., vitiate in the
eyes of law and, thus, the orders passed by
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and by the
revisional court, are unsustainable.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the
opposite party no. 4 has vehemently
opposed the contentions of learned counsel
for the applicants. He submits that after the
registered sale deed executed in favour of
the opposite party no. 4, she inherits certain
civil rights and once the applicants were
started making disturbance in peaceful
possession and there being apprehension of
breach of peace, the opposite party no. 4
moved an application under section 145 (1)
of Cr.P.C. He also added that the case of
the applicants which were instituted before
the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the
appellate authority were decided in favour
of the opposite party no. 4 and 5, and now
the matter is pending before the learned
Board of Revenue and therefore, in case of
apprehension of breach of peace, the SubDivisional Magistrate has rightly passed the
order and revisional court has rightly
upheld the order passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate.

16. After the aforesaid arguments, he
submits that the first and foremost
grievance of the opposite party no. 4 is that
no one should alienate the property and
8 All. Furhe Khan @ Fakir Mohammad Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1191
make hindrance in a peaceful possession of
the land in question or use thereof as was
traditionally being done by the parties. He
admitted that the Board of Revenue has
passed the order while directing the parties
on 05.01.2023, to maintain status-quo over
the land in question and thus, his
submission is that the parties may be
directed to abide by the orders passed by
the Board of revenue.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the
State has also supported the version of
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4
and contended that once an application was
moved by opposite party no. 4 and the facts
which were brought by her, that there is
apprehension of breach of peace then,
following the mandate of procedure, the
report was called from the police and after
receiving the report, the order was rightly
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
He added that once the matter went up to
the revisional court, the revisional court in
a very exhaustive manner decided the issue
and has upheld the order passed by SubDivisional Magistrate. Thus, submission is
that there is no erroneousness or perversity
in the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and the revisional court.

18. Having heard learned counsels for
the parties and after perusal of material
placed on record, it emerges that at the very
inception, the land in question was in the
name of applicants and opposite party no. 5
and they were co-sharers in the property
and once the property was sold out in
favour of opposite party no. 4, by way of
registered sale deed, the dispute arose with
the apprehension that the applicants will
make hindrance in the peaceful possession
of opposite party no. 4. It is also a fact that
suit for partition under section 116 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Code') was initially
instituted by the applicants no. 1 and 3
before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the
same decided in favour of the opposite
party no. 4 and thereafter, the appeal was
filed, that too was decided in favour of
opposite party no. 4, though, the interim
orders always were in existence to the
effect that the parties shall maintain statusquo over the land in question. Now the
matter is up to the stage of second appeal
and is pending consideration before the
Board of Revenue for hearing, wherein
also, the interim order is continuing with
the direction that the parties shall maintain
status-quo.

19. It is borne out from the arguments
of learned counsel for the applicants that an
application under section 145 (1) of Cr.P.C.
was instituted and thereafter, the order was
passed
by
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
invoking the jurisdiction under section 146
(1) of Cr.P.C. and the property in question
was attached ignoring the fact that the case
of partition suit and appeal was pending
before the court of civil competence, the
interim orders were running, whereby, the
parties were directed to maintain statusquo, thus, moot question is that whether,
while pendency of civil case and in
existence of an interim order passed by the
court of civil competence, the SubDivisional Magistrate was empowered to
pass any order, invoking it's jurisdiction
under section 145 (1) and 146 (1) of
Cr.P.C.?

20. It is trite law that if a civil dispute
is
pending
before
court
of
civil
competence, with respect to any property,
then there is no justification for initiating a
parallel criminal proceeding under section
145 of Cr.P.C. There is no doubt and
dispute that the decree of the civil court is
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
binding on the criminal courts. Further, in
case of the civil proceedings pending and
the order passed for maintaining status quo
by the parties or any ad interim order is in
existence, the jurisdiction under section
145 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked.

21. This Court is of considered
opinion that the matter pertaining to the
civil dispute can very well be dealt with,
while exercising powers conferred on civil
court under Sections 94 and 151 of C.P.C.
The civil court is a proper forum to exhaust
the civil grievances and for protecting the
interest of the parties. For resolving the
civil dispute, opening door for the criminal
proceedings would not be justifiable as the
same would lead not only multiplicity of
the litigations but that would also amount
to give colour of criminality to a civil
dispute.

22. It is also opinion of this Court that
if the civil suit is pending between the
parties and, prima facie, it seems that the
dispute is civil in nature and no interim
order is passed, even then the criminal
proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C.
cannot be permitted and in such event, civil
court can exercise its power conferred
under Sections 94 and 151 of C.P.C.

23. So far as the present case is
concerned, the proceedings under section
145 (1) of Cr.P.C. was instituted during the
pendency of the suit for division of
holdings of the property in question, before
the Sub-Divisional Officer and an interim
order was passed with the direction to the
parties to maintain status-quo over there.
Further, the order for maintaining status
quo was continuing in all the proceedings,
pending before the trial court and the
appellate court and now is also running in
the second appeal pending before Board of
Revenue. In such circumstances, the
proceeding under section 145 (1) of Cr.P.C.
is not maintainable.

24. Resultantly, the order dated
11.07.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Jamunaha dated, in Case No.
T201808620302227 and order of the
Revisional Court dated 05.08.2019, passed
by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track-
(II), Shravasti, are hereby set aside.

25. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, the instant application is
allowed.

26. Consequences shall be followed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1192
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 7244 of 2023

Dr. Shail Kumar Jain ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Shiv P. Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 - Sections 17B, 17A(e), 18A & 27 -
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - Rule
123, Schedule K - Against summoning
order - Applicant is registered medical
practitioner - After taking sample of
medicine, sent to Lab, examined, found
against norms, notice issued and after
receiving
reply,
complaint
filed
by