# Krishna Kant Pachauri & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1506
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-23
- **Case number:** Application U/s 482 No. 16864 of 2021
- **Bench:** Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-kant-pachauri-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48439
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - SC/ST Act,1989 -Sections 3(1)
(Da) & 3(1) (Dha)- Business relation between
the applicant and accused-FIR lodged u/s 406,
420, 504, 506 IPC & u/s 3(1) (Da) & 3(1) (Dha)
SC/ST Act -SC/ST Act has been imposed to
make their case strong-Summoning order is
quashed only to extent of section 3(1) (Da),
3(1) (Dha) SC/St Act.

Application partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
writing should be made by the Tehsildar as
the public servant concerned in this case.
On the other hand what we find is that a
complaint by the Tehsildar was not filed at
all, but a charge sheet was put in by the
Station House Officer. The learned counsel
for the State Government tries to support
the action by submitting that s. 195 had
been complied with inasmuch as when the
allegations had been disproved, the letter of
the Superintendent of Police was forwarded
to the Tehsildar and he asked for "a
calendar". This paper was flied along with
the charge sheet and it is stated that this
satisfies the requirements of s. 195. In our
opinion, this is not a due compliance with
the provisions of that section. What the
section comtemplates is that the complaint
must be in writing by the public servant
concerned and there is no such compliance
in the present case. The cognizance of the
case was therefore wrongly assumed by the
court without the complaint in writing of
the public servant namely the Tehsildar in
this case. The trial was thus without
jurisdiction ab inito and the conviction
cannot be maintained. "

 14. From the above mentioned
judgement, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that the Tehsildar was
investigating the matter and the chargesheet
was filed by the Station House Officer,
whereas the competent public servant was
the Tehsildar and he has not submitted any
written complaint, hence, the cognizance of
the case was therefore wrongly assumed by
the court and the trial was thus without
jurisdiction ab initio and the conviction
cannot be maintained.

 15. In the present case also in
pursuance of the F.I.R. lodged by the SubInspector, the chargesheet was filed and the
cognizance has been taken by the trial
Court for an offence under Section 174-A
I.P.C. in absence of any complaint in
writing by the officern concerned. In the
present case the officer concerned is the
Investigating Officer i.e. the Circle Officer
or the officer/ the public servant under
whom he is administratively subordinate.
In the present case the Circle Officer who is
under administrative Sub-ordinate of the
Superintendent
of
Police,
so
the
Superintendent of Police has also not filed
any complaint as required under Section
195 Cr.P.C. The proceedings were initiated
in pursuance of an F.I.R. lodged by Sub
Inspector, who was not the investigating
officer and hence the order of the trial
Court is without jurisdiction ab initio and
the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

 16. As per the discussion made
hereinabove, the proceeding of Case
No.179/2021, arising out of Case Crime
No.0312/2020, under section 174-A IPC,
P.S. Behjoi, District - Sambhal is quashed.

 17. The present petition/ application
is allowed.
----------

(2022)05ILR A1506
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Application U/s 482 No. 16864 of 2021

Krishna Kant Pachauri & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Shashi Shekhar Mishra, Sri A.K. Mishra,
Sri Upendra Kumar Tiwari
5 All. Krishna Kant Pachauri & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1507
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Civil Law - SC/ST Act,1989 -Sections 3(1)
(Da) & 3(1) (Dha)- Business relation between
the applicant and accused-FIR lodged u/s 406,
420, 504, 506 IPC & u/s 3(1) (Da) & 3(1) (Dha)
SC/ST Act -SC/ST Act has been imposed to
make their case strong-Summoning order is
quashed only to extent of section 3(1) (Da),
3(1) (Dha) SC/St Act.

Application partly allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hitesh Verma Vs The St. of Uttarakhand &
anr. 2020 AIR(SC)5584

2. Khuman Singh Vs St. of M.P. , 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 1104

3. Sher Ali Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Application Us
482 No. 12850/2021

4. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Pun.

5.
Zandu
Pancharishth
&
Ms.
Niharika
Infrastructure Vs St. of Mah.

6. Satendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr. ( Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021
(Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,
J.)

1. vkosndx.k dh vksj ls /kkjk 482
na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr ;g vkosnu i=] eq0v0la0
243 lu 2020] vUrxZr /kkjk 406] 420] 504] 506
Hkk0na0fo0 ,oa 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST
Act] Fkkuk Qjg] ftyk eFkqjk esa izsf"kr vkjksi i=
fn0 21&7&2021 ls mn~Hkwr fo'ks"k l= ijh{k.k la0
917 lu 2021 esa Lis'ky tt] ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0
,sDV] eFkqjk }kjk ikfjr izlaKku vkns'k fn0
29&7&2021 ds fo:) nk;j fd;k x;k gSA

2. vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk] foi{kh
la0 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vij
'kkldh; vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk
ifj'khyu fd;kA

3. vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk
dFku gS fd foi{kh la0 2 fnyhi flag tkVo us
fn0 20&3&2020 dks ftykf/kdkjh] eFkqjk dks tks
vkosnu i= fn;k gS mlesa mlus dgk gS fd %
"ps;jeSu Qjg Jh d`".kdkUr us /kks[kkkM+h ls
csbZekuh dh fu;r ls Lo;a ,aVzh dj QthZ rjhds
ls izkFkhZ o mlds HkkbZ ds [kkrs esa ls :i;k
fudky fy;sA izkFkhZ tc ps;jeSu d`".kdkUr ls 133-2020 dks lk;a muds ikl x;k rks d`".kdkUr o
muds HkkbZ caVh o eueksgu feys] lHkh us izkFkhZ dks
xUnh&xUnh xkfy;ka nh vkSj dgk fd lkys pejs
;g gekjs deh'ku ds iSls gSa] ;gkW ls pyk tk
ugha rks tku ls ekj nsaxsA dkQh yksx bdV~Bs gks
x;s ftUgksaus eq>s o esjs lkFk x;s v'kksd us
cpk;kA izkFkhZ Jheku th dh lsok esa fjiksVZ ntZ
djus vk;k gSA" foi{kh la0 2 fnyhi flag tkVo
dh vksj ls bUgha dFkuksa ds lkFk fn0 31&8&2020
dks Fkkuk Qjg esa ,d izkFkfedh Hkh iathd`r
djk;h x;hA

4. vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk
dFku gS fd bl izkFkfedh ,oa f'dk;rh i= ds
ckjs esa tkWp vf/kdkjh@fMIVh dysDVj] eFkqjk }kjk
tkWp dh x;h rFkk mUgksaus f'kdk;rdrkZ }kjk dh
x;h f'kdk;r dks Ny diV] /kks[kk/kMh o
dwVjfpr dgus ds rF; dks fujk/kkj ekuk gS]
muds vkns'k fn0 6&6&2020 dk eq[; va'k bl
izdkj gS %& "f'kdk;rdrkZ Jh fnyhi dqekj
tkVo] iq= Jh dqojlsu] fuoklh xzke c<+k;
yrhQiqj ckxj dh f'kdk;r ,oa Jh d`".kdkUr
ipkSjh] ps;jeSu uxj iapk;r Qjg eFkqjk }kjk
miyC/k djk;s x;s fyf[kr c;kuksa dk Hkyh&HkkWfr
ijh{k.k fd;k rks ik;k x;k fd Jh fnyhi dqekj
dk [kkrk eFkqjk ftyk lgdkjh cSad fy0 eFkqjk esa
gS] ftldk [kkrk la[;k 000620000016953 gS
rFkk Jh ykyflag dk [kkrk Hkh eFkqjk ftyk
lgdkjh cSad fy0] eFkqjk esa gS ftldk [kkrk
la[;k 000620000016951 gSA Jh fnyhi dqekj dks
cSad }kjk tkjh dh x;h pSd cqd ds pSd la[;k
693251 ls 4]67]000@&:0 fnukad 20&2&2020
dks rFkk Jh yky flag dks cSad }kjk tkjh dh
1508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
x;h pSd cqd ds pSd la[;k 693202 ls
1]35]000@:0 fnukad 20&2&2020 dks mijksDr
nksuksa /kujkf'k;kW eFkqjk ftyk lgdkjh cSad fy0]
eFkqjk ds cSad eSustj }kjk gLrk{kj ,oa pSdksa dk
feyku djds gh Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gksxkA vr%
f'kdk;rdrkZ }kjk dh x;h f'kdk;r fd
Ny&diV] /kks[kk&/kM+h o dwVjfpr djds Jh
d`".kdkUr ipkSjh }kjk 6]02]000@:0 vius [kkrs
esa VzkUlQj djk fy;s x;s gSa fujk/kkj gS D;ksafd
eFkqjk ftyk lgdkjh cSad fy0] eFkqjk ds cSad
eSustj }kjk gLrk{kj ,oa pSdksa dk feyku djds
gh Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA f'kdk;rdrkZ dh
f'kdk;r fu{ksfir fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA"

5. vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g
Hkh dFku gS fd dsl Mk;jh ds voyksdu ls ;g
Li"V gksrk gS fd Jh lrh'k pUnz feJk] cSad
eSustj us foospd dks ;g c;ku fn;k gS fd %&
"esjs lkeus d`".kdkUr ipkSjh }kjk dksbZ pkj lkS
chlh] /kks[kk/kM+h o "kM+;U= ugha fd;k x;k FkkA
yky flag o fnyhi us esjs le{k pSd ij gLrk{kj
fd;s Fks] gLrk{kjksa dk dEI;wVj ij feyku Lo;a
esjs }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk] budk D;k fookn gS] eq>s
ugha ekywe] cSad esa dksbZ pkj lkS chlh] "kM+;U= o
/kks[kk/kM+h ugha dh x;h gSA"

6. vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk dFku
gS fd tkWp vf/kdkjh@fMIVh dysDVj] eFkqjk dh
mijksDr tkWp vk[;k ,oa lacaf/kr cSad eSustj }kjk
foospd dks fn, x, c;ku ls bl izdj.k esa
vkosndx.k ds fo:) ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 dk ekeyk
ugha curk gS] i{kdkjksa ds e/; vkil esa O;kikfjd
laca/k Fkk rFkk O;kikfjd iSlksa ds ysu&nsu dk fookn
Fkk] ftlesa muds e/; VzkUtsD'ku Hkh gqvk gS] fdUrq
mlh fookn ds dkj.k foi{kh la0 2 }kjk vkosndx.k
dks rax o ijs'kku djus ds fy, ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0
,sDV ds vUrxZr Hkh QWlk fn;k gS] ftlesa fo}ku
voj U;k;ky; }kjk fcuk rF; ,oa lk{;ksa ij
leqfpr fopkj fd, gq, izlaKku vkns'k ikfjr dj
fn;k x;k] tks fd vuqfpr gS rFkk vikLr fd, tkus
;ksX; gSA

7. vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius
rdksZ ds leFkZu esa Hitesh Verma Vs. The State
of Uttarakhand and another 2020 AIR(SC)5584 esa
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr fof/k
O;oLFkk ds izLrj 14] 17] 20] 23 ,oa 24 dh vksj
U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;k] tks fuEuor~ gSa
%&

"14. Another key ingredient of
the provision is insult or intimidation in
"any place within public view". What is to
be regarded as "place in public view" had
come up for consideration before this Court
in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh
& Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel
& Ors.5. The Court had drawn distinction
between the expression "public place" and
"in any place within public view". It was
held that if an offence is committed outside
the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house,
and the lawn can be seen 5 (2008) 8 SCC
435 by someone from the road or lane
outside the boundary wall, then the lawn
would certainly be a place within the public
view. On the contrary, if the remark is made
inside a building, but some members of the
public are there (not merely relatives or
friends) then it would not be an offence
since it is not in the public view. The Court
held as under:

"28. It has been alleged in the
FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant,
was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by
calling him a "chamar") when he stood near
the car which was parked at the gate of the
premises. In our opinion, this was certainly
a place within public view, since the gate of
a house is certainly a place within public
view. It could have been a different matter
had the alleged offence been committed
inside a building, and also was not in the
public view. However, if the offence is
committed outside the building e.g. in a
lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be
seen by someone from the road or lane
outside the boundary wall, the lawn would
certainly be a place within the public view.
5 All. Krishna Kant Pachauri & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1509
Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public
are there (not merely relatives or friends)
then also it would be an offence since it is
in the public view. We must, therefore, not
confuse the expression "place within public
view" with the expression "public place". A
place can be a private place but yet within
the public view. On the other hand, a public
place would ordinarily mean a place which
is owned or leased by the Government or
the municipality (or other local body) or
gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the
State, and not by private persons or private
bodies."

17. In another judgment reported as
Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104 this Court held
that in a case for applicability of Section
3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased
belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be
enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This
Court held that there was nothing to suggest
that the offence was committed by the
appellant only because the deceased belonged
to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under:

"15. As held by the Supreme Court,
the offence must be such so as to attract the
offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The
offence must have been committed against
the person on the ground that such person is a
member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the
deceased was belonging to "Khangar"-
Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no
evidence to show that the offence was
committed only on the ground that the victim
was a member of the Scheduled Caste and
therefore, the conviction of the appellantaccused under Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not
sustainable."

18. Therefore, offence under the
Act is not established merely on the fact
that the informant is a member of
Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention
to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the
victim belongs to such caste. In the present
case, the parties are litigating over
possession of the land. The allegation of
hurling of abuses is against a person who
claims title over the property. If such
person happens to be a Scheduled Caste,
the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act
is not made out.

19. This Court in a judgment
reported
as
Dr.
Subhash
Kashinath
Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.,
(2018) 6 SCC 454 issued certain directions
in respect of investigations required to be
conducted under the Act. In a review filed
by the Union against the said judgment,
this Court in a judgment reported as Union
of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
(2020) 4 SCC 761 reviewed the directions
issued by this Court and held that if there is
a false and unsubstantiated FIR, the
proceedings under Section 482 of the Code
can be invoked.

The Court held as under:

"52. There is no presumption that
the members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
may
misuse
the
provisions of law as a class and it is not
resorted to by the members of the upper
castes or the members of the elite class. For
lodging a false report, it cannot be said that
the caste of a person is the cause. It is due
to the human failing and not due to the
caste factor. Caste is not attributable to
such an act. On the other hand, members of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
due to backwardness hardly muster the
courage to lodge even a first information
report, much less, a false one. In case it is
found to be false/unsubstantiated, it may be
due to the faulty investigation or for other
various reasons including human failings
1510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
irrespective of caste factor. There may be
certain cases which may be false that can
be a ground for interference by the Court,
but the law cannot be changed due to such
misuse. In such a situation, it can be taken
care of in proceeding under Section 482
CrPC."

20. Later, while examining the
constitutionality of the provisions of the
Amending Act (Central ActNo. 27 of
2018), this Court in a judgment reported as
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India &
Ors., (2020), 4 SCC 727 held that
proceedings can be quashed under Section
482 of the Code. It was held as under:

"12.
The
Court
can,
in
exceptional cases, exercise power under
Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to
prevent misuse of provisions on settled
parameters, as already observed while
deciding the review petitions. The legal
position is clear, and no argument to the
contrary has been raised."

23. This Court in a judgment
reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh & Ors. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2018) 13
SCC 612 held that there is no prohibition
under the law for quashing the charge-sheet
in part. In a petition filed under Section 482
of the Code, the High Court is required to
examine as to whether its intervention is
required for prevention of abuse of process
of law or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. The Court held as under:

"9. Having regard to the settled
legal position on external interference in
investigation and the specific facts of this
case, we are of the view that the High
Court
ought
to
have
exercised
its
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to
secure the ends of justice. There is no
prohibition under law for quashing a
charge-sheet in part. A person may be
accused of several offences under different
penal statutes, as in the instant case. He
could be aggrieved of prosecution only on a
particular charge or charges, on any ground
available to him in law. Under Section 482,
all that the High Court is required to
examine is whether its intervention is
required for implementing orders under the
Criminal Procedure Code or for prevention
of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. A charge-sheet filed at
the dictate of somebody other than the
police would amount to abuse of the
process of law and hence the High Court
ought to have exercised its inherent powers
under Section 482 to the extent of the
abuse. There is no requirement that the
charge-sheet has to be quashed as a whole
and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is
allowed. The supplementary report filed by
the police, at the direction of the
Commission, is quashed."

24. In view of the above facts, we
find that the charges against the appellant
under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not
made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet
to that extent is quashed. The 10 (2018) 13
SCC 612 appeal is disposed of in the
above terms."

8. foi{kh la0 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us
vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ dk
[k.Mu djrs gq, rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd vkosnd
la0 1 d`".k dkUr ipkSjh us lwpukdrkZ ,oa mlds
HkkbZ ls 2 CySad psd ys fy;k Fkk ,oa muij
gLrk{kj djk fy;s Fks rFkk vkosndx.k us foi{kh
la0 2 ds lkFk /kks[kk/kM+h djrs gq, mlds iSlksa dks
QthZ rjhds ls gM+i fy;k gS] ifjoknh ,oa mlds
HkkbZ ds /kkjk 161 na0iz0la0 ds c;ku ,oa izkFkfedh
ls vkosndx.k ds fo:) mijksDr /kkjkvksa dk
vijk/k xfBr gksrk gS] bl Lrj ij ;g ugha dgk
tk ldrk fd vkosndx.k funksZ"k gSa ,oa mUgksaus
rFkkdfFkr vijk/k dkfjr ugha fd;k gS] foospd us
lgh ,oa fu"i{k foospuk djrs gq, vkosndx.k ds
fo:) vkjksi i= fnukafdr 21&7&2021 izsf"kr
fd;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij fo}ku fo'ks"k
U;k;k/kh'k] ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 ,sDV] eFkjqk }kjk
5 All. Krishna Kant Pachauri & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1511
vkosndx.k ds fo:) izlaKku dk vkns'k ikfjr
fd;k x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa vkosndx.k }kjk /kkjk
482 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr vkosndx.k }kjk nk;j
vkosnu i= fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA mUgksaus
vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa Sher Ali Vs. State of
U.P. and others, Coordinate Bench of
this Hon'ble Court Application Us 482
No. 12850/2021 frvofrf pm 5/10.2021,
R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, Zandu
Pancharishth
and
Ms.
Niharika
Infrastructure Vs. State of Maharashtra
dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V fd;kA

9. eSaus foi{kh la0 2 ds fo}ku vf/koDrk
}kjk izLrqr mDr fof/k&O;oLFkkvksa dk voyksdu
fd;kA mDr fof/k O;oLFkkvksa ds rF; orZeku okn
ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k]
mudk ykHk foi{kh la0 2 dks ugha iznku fd;k tk
ldrk gSA

10. eSaus mHk; i{k ds ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds
rdksZ ds ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ,oa
iz'uxr vkns'kksa dk ifj'khyu fd;kA

11. esjs fopkj ls vkosndx.k ds fo:)
/kkjk 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act dk
vijk/k xfBr ugha gksrk gSA ;g rF; lR; gS fd
vkosndx.k ,oa foi{kh la0 2 rFkk mlds HkkbZ ds
e/; O;kikfjd laca/k Fks] i{kdkjksa esa vkil esa iSlksa
dk ysu&nsu gqvk djrk Fkk] ftlls foi{kh la0 2
us O;fFkr gksdj vkosndx.k ds fo:) izkFkfedh
ntZ djk;h ,oa mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks f'kdk;rh i=
izsf"kr fd, rFkk viuh ckr dks vf/kd cy'kkyh
cukus ds mn~ns'; ls mUgksaus vkosndx.k ds fo:)
vU; /kkjkvksa ds lkFk viuh tkfr dk Qk;nk
mBkrs gq, /kkjk 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST
Act Hkh fy[kk fn;kA tcfd mUgsa lR; ckrksa dh
f'kdk;r djus dk vf/kdkj rks gS ijUrq viuh
ckr dks vf/kd cy'kkyh cukus ds mn~ns'; ls
,l0lh0@,l0Vh0 dks tcju ugha tksM+uk pkfg,A
mUgsa fdlh O;fDr ij vuko';d :i ls bl rjg
ds vkjksi yxkus ls cpuk pkfg,] vU;Fkk Hkfo";
esa lekt muds lkFk O;kikfjd o feyus tqyus
okys laca/kks ls nwjh cuk ysxk] tks fd lekt ds
fy, mfpr ugha gSA

12. ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds
n`f"Vxr ;g vkosnu i= vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj
fd;k tkrk gS rFkk fo'ks"k l= ijh{k.k la0 917
lu 2021 esa Lis'ky tt] ,l0lh0@,l0Vh0
,sDV] eFkqjk }kjk ikfjr izlaKku vkns'k fn0
29&7&2021 esa /kkjk 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha)
SC/ST Act lekIr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk /kkjk
406] 420] 504] 506 Hkk0na0fo0 ds vUrxZr
izlaKku fy;s tkus dk vkns'k ;Fkkor jgsxkA

13. bl Lrj ij vkosndx.k ds fo}ku
vf/koDrk us vuqjks/k fd;k fd vkosndx.k ds
tekur vkosnu i= dk fuLrkj.k djus gsrq
lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; dks funsZf'kr dj fn;k
tk;A

14. mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds
rdksZ dks Jo.kksijkUr] i=koyh ds ifj'khyu ls]
U;k;ky; us ik;k fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa yxk,
x, vkjksi ,d laKs; vijk/k ds deh'ku dk
[kqyklk djrs gSa vkSj og vkjksi] dh x;h foospuk
ds mijkUr yxk, x, gSa] mu vkjksiksa dks bl
U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 482 na0iz0la0 ds rgr viuh
'kfDr dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] tkWp ds nkSjku ,d=
dh x;h lkexzh ds vkjksiksa dh 'kq)rk vkSj
fo'oluh;rk dk vkdyu djus dh vko';drk
ugha gS] bl Lrj ij vfHk;qDr ds fookfnr cpko
ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA rn~uqlkj
vkjksi i= ;k mijksDr okn dh dk;Zokgh dks jn~n
djus dh izkFkZuk vkSj ifj.kkeh dk;Zokgh vLohd`r
dh tkrh gSA

15. bl Lrj ij] vkosndx.k ds fo}ku
vf/koDrk dk vuqjks/k gS fd vkosndx.k dks vHkh
rd mijksDr ekeys esa fxjQ~rkj ugha fd;k x;k
gS vkSj iqfyl vkosndx.k dks fxjQ~rkj djus ds
iz;kl esa gS] vkSj lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; }kjk
vkosndx.k ds f[kykQ n.MkRed izfdz;k tkjh dh
tk ldrh gS] blfy, vkosndx.k ds tekur
vkosnu i= ij fopkj djus ds fy, lacaf/kr voj
U;k;ky; dks funsZ'k tkjh dj fn;k tk;A
1512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another (
Apecial Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191
of 2021 ds izdj.k dks vkns'k fn0 7&10&2021
}kjk igys gh tekur gsrq fn'kk funsZ'k nsrs gq,
fuLrkfjr fd;k tk pqdk gS] blds i'pkr~ vc
lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; dks tekur nsus ds fy,
muds foosd vkSj fopkj dks fu;af=r djus okys
oS/kkfud izkfo/kkuksa dks izHkkfor fd, fcuk] bl
U;k;ky; }kjk dksbZ fof'k"V funsZ'k tkjh djus dh
vko';drk ugha gS] D;ksafd ;g vis{kk dh tkrh gS
fd lacaf/kr voj U;k;ky; vkosnd ds tekur
izkFkZuk i= dks fuLrkfjr djrs le; ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk igys ls tkjh vko';d
fn'kkfunsZ'kksa dks /;ku esa j[ksxkA

17. mijksDr fVIif.k;ksa ds lkFk] ;g vkosnu
i= vfUre :i ls fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
----------
(2022)05ILR A1512
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Second Appeal No. 1468 of 1992

Sahabal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Budhiram & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Faujdar Rai, Sri C.K. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.L. Yadav, Sri B.B. Paul, Sri Rajendra
Rai, Sri Rajesh Maurya, Sri Shamumul
Hasnain, Sri Sheo Ram Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1961- Section 49-section Suit for decree
of possession-Plaintiff's title to suit property
accepted by both Courts-cannot be faulted-no
discussion to show case of joint possessionexcept a licence-if on revocation of licencedefendant could be removed from possessionno joint possession may hinder a decree of
exclusive possession passed in favour of
Plaintiff-subject to valid revocation of licencesuit property comprises constructions -raised by
Plaintiff-licensed
to
defendants-suit
maintainable-unaffected by section 60 of Indian
Easements Act-During consolidation operationsno objection about title been raised by
defendants-now defendants precluded from
raising question of title -bar u/s 49 of U.P.C.H.
Act.

Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jai Narain Vs Sri Ram Narain (deceased by L.
R's.) & ors., AIR 1989 All 182

2. Babu Fazal Haq & ors. Vs Lala Data Ram &
anr., AIR 1975 All 373

3. Ramesh Vs Pandurangrao Ratnalikar & ors.,
2006 SCC OnLine Bom 81

4. Dhool Singh Vs Smt. Bardhu Bal & ors., AIR
1974 Raj 90
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is a defendants' second appeal,
arising from a suit for recovery of
possession and mesne profits.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Rajesh Maurya and Mr.
Sheo
Ram
Singh,
learned
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Budhiram, the sole plaintiffrespondent, who is now represented by his
heirs and LRs before this Court, instituted
Original Suit No.627 of 1995 in the exCourt of Munsif, Mohammadabad Gohna,
District Azamgarh against Sahabal and
Ninku, arrayed as the defendants first set,