# Mahant Dharmendra Das v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1470
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-05
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 627 of 2020
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahant-dharmendra-das-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48434
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 145 -
Opposite party in peaceful possession-over
disputed land since 2006-presently legal
title in his favour-which is never disturbed
by any Civil Court-Revisional Court heldproceedings
u/s
145
Cr.P.C.

not
maintainable-as title and possession is
settled
in
favour
of
opposite
partyImpugned order upheld.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ensuring compliance of aforesaid directions
by the police.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1470
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 627 of 2020

Mahant Dharmendra Das ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mohiuddin Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Nadeem Murtaza, Rupendra Kumar
Singh, Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 145 -
Opposite party in peaceful possession-over
disputed land since 2006-presently legal
title in his favour-which is never disturbed
by any Civil Court-Revisional Court heldproceedings
u/s
145
Cr.P.C.

not
maintainable-as title and possession is
settled
in
favour
of
opposite
partyImpugned order upheld.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ramabai Govind Vs Raghunath Vasudeo AIR
1952 Bombay 106

2. Misrilal Raidani Vs Netaichand Nandi AIR
1934 Calcutta 372

3. Bhinka & ors. Vs Charan Singh AIR 1959 SC
960

4. Civil Appeal No. 3007-3008 of 2017
(Prabhakar Adiga Vs Gowri & ors.)
5. Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
AIR 1985 SC 47

6. Ganesh Prasad & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & 4
others
(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Shri Mohiuddin Khan,
learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Rupendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for the respondent.

2. This petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the
judgment and order dated 13.12.2019
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.7, Lucknow in Criminal Revision
No. 674 of 2019(Bharat Singh Vs. State of
U.P.
and
another)
and
order
dated
18.10.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow in
case no. 10190 of 2019 (Computerized No.
T201910460410190) (Dharmendra Das Vs.
Bharat Singh).

3. Submission of the learned counsel
for the applicant is that land bearing Gata
No. 259 area 6.7660 hectare, Khasra No.
333 area 1.1320 hectare and Khasra No.
406 Ga area 0.9780 hectare situated in
village- Aldampur, P.S. Itaunja District-
Luknow originally belongs to Thakur Ji
Maharaj
Trust,
Udaseen
Sangat,
Guruduwara, Nanak Shahi, Purani Sabji
Mandi Chowk Lucknow ( hereinafter
referred to as "Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust")
and the opposite party no. 2 is claiming to
have purchased the disputed land from Shri
Mahant Bharat Das through sale deed dated
17.7.2006.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that due to lack of management of
the properties situated at village-Adlampur
5 All. Mahant Dharmendra Das Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1471
by Shri Mahant Sabzi Mandi Chowk,
Lucknow and taking advantage of such
problems the opposite party no. 2 produced
Baba Ram Bhajan Das as Chela of Late
Mahant Ganga Das Ji and got his name
recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter
opposite party no. 2 is claiming to have
purchased the land bearing Gata No. 259,
ad-measuring 6.7660 from Shri Mahant
Bharat Dass, Chela of Mahant Baba Ramji
Dass through sale deed dated 17.7.2006
and purchased the property in the name of
Anmol
Gramudyog
Sansthan,
Awadh
Poultry Farm, Faridi Nagar, Lucknow.
Opposite party no. 2 is also claiming that
his mother and wife had jointly purchased
the land bearing Gata No. 333 admeasuring 1.1320 hectare and Gata No.
406
Ga
ad-measuring
0.978
hectare
through sale deed dated 18.9.2006.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that sale deed dated
17.7.2006 and 18.9.20006 are void ab-initio
in view of the provisions contained in
Section 36 and 37 of the Indian Trusts Act,
1882 and executor of both the sale deed
namely Mahant Bharat Dass was not
appointed/authorized as Mahant of Thakur
Ji Maharaj Trust. Hence he was having no
authority to execute the alleged sale deeds.
He
further
submitted
that
Mahant
Parmeshwar Das had resigned and made a
declaration through registered sale deed
dated 7.2.2011 appointing the applicant as
Mahant and Sarvakar of the Thakur Ji
Maharaj Trust. A photo copy of the sale
deed dated 7.2.20211 is being annexed as
Annexure 3 to the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant having been
appointed as Mahant and regarding this
Mahajjarnama was also executed which
was registered on 19.10.2012 recognizing
the applicant as Mahant appointed on the
vacant post of the Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust.
The petitioner has been handed over
possession over the land in question on
13.12.2018 and 17.12.2018. On the spot,
the constructed building, Puja Sthan,
Kothan, Snan Kund etc are situated and the
opposite party no. 2 through muscle power
wants to disturb the possession of the
petitioner regarding which F.I.R. has been
lodged at Police Station- Itaunja, District-
Lucknow and report was submitted on
17.9.2019 and on the basis of the said
report, case no. 10190 of 2019 ( Mahant
Dharmendra Das Vs. Bharat Singh) was
registered and notice was issued to the
opposite parties. The Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab vide his order
dated 18.10.2019 has attached the property
in dispute under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C.
and appointed Shri Atul Kumar Shukla,
Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Aldampur
as receiver on 25.10.2019. The petitioner
has
filed
his
detailed
objection
on
9.10.2019
but
same
has
not
been
considered by S.D.M., Bakshi Ka Talab
(opposite party no. 1.)

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that opposite party no. 2 is
regularly trying to take over forcible
possession over the disputed land and in
this regard, the appointed receiver namely
Shri Atul Kumar Shukla, Gram Pradhan has
moved a complaint dated 30.10.2019
before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi
Ka Talab for issuing necessary directions to
the police of Police Station- Itaunja. The
opposite party no. 2 when could not
succeed in obtaining forcible possession
over the disputed land has filed criminal
revision no. 674 of 2019 on 1.11.2019. The
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7,
Lucknow vide his impugned judgment and
order dated 13.12.2019 has allowed the
1472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revision thereby setting aside the order
dated 18.10.2019 passed by opposite party
no. 1- the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow. On the basis of
that Civil Judge Hawali (Junior Division),
Lucknow in Suit No. 544 of 2009 by the
judgment and order dated 6.8.2010 decreed
the suit in favour of the opposite party no. 2
and decree was passed restraining the
erstwhile respondent in suit permanently
not to interfere in the peaceful possession
of the applicant.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that decree passed in Suit No.
544 of 2009 was obtained against
Parmeshwar Das and Rajendra Singh.
The applicant was not party of above suit
and thus, the opposite party no. 2 has
obtained decree against wrong person
hence the same is not enforceable against
the applicant according to law. The
opposite party no. 2 is trying to take
possession
of
the
disputed
land.
Therefore,
the
petitioner
has
filed
application dated 21.12.2019 before the
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka
Talab for recording the name of Thakur Ji
Maharaj in revenue record over the land
in dispute and stopping the opposite party
no. 2 from interfering in the peaceful
possession of the petitioner but till date
no action has been taken in the matter.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
vehemently submits that opposite party
no. 2 and Bharat Das @ Ram Newaj
Singh are trying to alienate the properties
of the trust. The claim of the opposite
party no. 2 over the land of the Thakur Ji
Maharaj Trust on the basis of the sale
deed executed by Bharat Das @ Ram
Newaj Singh without obtaining the
permission from the competent court is
liable to be rejected. Since the property in
question belongs to Thakur Ji Maharaj
Trust , the applicant- Mahant Dharmendra
Das is entitled to get the possession of the
property.

9. Thus, in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case it is expedient
and necessary in the interest of justice
that the instant petition be allowed with
costs by setting aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 13.12.2019
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
and order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka
Talab, Lucknow. In support of his
submission, learned counsel for the
applicant relied upon the judgment of
Bombay High Court in the case of
Ramabai
Govind
Vs.
Raghunath
Vasudeo
AIR
1952
Bombay
106,
judgment of Calcutta High Court in the
case of Misrilal Raidani Vs. Netaichand
Nandi AIR 1934 Calcutta 372 and
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Bhinka and others Vs.
Charan Singh AIR 1959 SC 960.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 submits that at the very outset it
is pertinent to submit that the instant
petition deserves to be dismissed in limine,
as the order under challenge in the instant
petition is reviseable. He further submitted
that the applicant approached this Court by
filing of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
invoking the inherent powers of this
Hon'ble Court, in absolute disregard to the
alternative
and
efficacious
remedy
available to him. The opposite party no. 2
had purchased the property in question
bearing Khasra No. 260, Gata No. 259
admeasuring 6.7660 hectare jointly with his
father-in-law, namely, Shri Ramji Singh
from the then recorded tenure holder Shri
Mahant Bharat Das, chela of Mahant Baba
Ramji Dass for sale consideration of Rs.
5 All. Mahant Dharmendra Das Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1473
10,40,000/- by registered sale deed dated
17.7.2006. The land bearing Gata No. 333
admeasuring 1.1320 hectare and Gata No.
406-Ga admeasuring 0.978 hectare were
purchased jointly by mother of the opposite
party no. 2 namely, Smt. Kalawati Singh
and the wife of the opposite party no. 2,
namely, Madhu Singh vide sale deed dated
18.9.2006. Thus, the opposite party no. 2 is
bonafide
purchaser
of
the
aforesaid
property and has got absolutely no concern
with the dispute between the seller of the
aforesaid property i.e. Shri Mahant Bharat
Dass and his rivals including the applicant
herein. He further submitted that Mahant
Ramji Dass was the undisputed chela of
Mahant Shri Atma Dass Ji and Mahant
Ramji Dass had in his lifetime clarified that
he has only two disciples, namely, Baba
Dayal and Baba Bharat Dass (who was
appointed as Mahant Sarvakar after demise
of Mahant Baba Ramji Dass). Baba
Parmeshwar Das, who has absolutely no
concern with the Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust,
claimed successor of Mahant Baba Ramji
Dass. The applicant claimed his title over
property of the Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust
through aforesaid Baba Shri Parmeshwar
Dass. Baba Bharat Dass was duly recorded
as successor of Mahant Baba Ram Ji Dass
and name of Baba Bharat Dass was also
recorded in the revenue record.

11. Learned counsel for the opposite
party
no.
2
submitted
that
Mahant
Parmeshwar
Dass
challenged
the
succession certificate granted to Mahant
Baba Bharat Dass, however, the same was
withdrawn by Mahant Parmeshwar Dass
and acknowledged that Mahant Baba
Bharat Dass is the rightful successor of
Mahant Baba Ram Ji Dass. On 5.2.2011
Mahant Parmeshwar Dass, who himself
had no title over the aforesaid properties,
had declared the applicant to be his
successor. However, the declaration letter
was revoked by Mahant Parmeshwar Dass
on 7.9.2012. Copy of the aforesaid
declaration letter dated 5.2.2011 and
7.9.2012 are collectively annexed as
Annexure C.A.-3 with counter affidavit.
Thus, the petitioner has no right to interfere
in the property belonging to the opposite
party no. 2.

12. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 further submitted that the
opposite party no. 2 filed a suit before the
learned
Civil
Judge,
Hawali
(Junior
Division),
Lucknow
for
permanent
injunction against Arvind Kumar Singh and
Baba Shri Parmeshwar Dass (allegedly
guru of the applicant), which is registered
as Original Suit No. 544 of 2009 wherein
the court restraining the applicant to
interfere in the peaceful possession of the
opposite party no. 2. The injunction suit is
binding on Parmeshwar Dass Ji as well
against his legal representative. Learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also
submitted that some of the Khasra No. 259
has been kept in mortgage by the opposite
party no. 2 in the name of Gramin Bank of
Aryawart. The wife of the opposite party
no. 2 is also running a milk production
dairy under the Kamdhenu Shceme on the
part of the aforesaid land from several
years after constructing the requisite built
area. Copies of the revenue records are
collectively annexed as Annexure C.A.-8
with counter affidavit. It is fully established
that the opposite party no. 2 has peaceful
possession over the land of VillageAldampur,
Tehsil-Bakshi
Ka
Talab,
District- Lucknow.

13. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 further submitted that the
proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was
initiated with malafide intention and notice
1474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was issued under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C.
against the opposite party no. 2. The
opposite party no. 2 presented a detailed
written statement and also brought on
record judgment and order dated 6.8.2010
passed in O.S. No. 544 of 2009 by which
the title of the opposite party no. 2 has been
confirmed
and
decree
of
permanent
injunction has been passed in favour of the
opposite party no. 2 but the Sub Divisional
Magistrate without application of judicial
mind passed the order of attachment on
18.10.2019. It is also submitted that the
land bearing Gata No. 333, which has
already been sold by the wife of the
opposite party no. 2 to the M/s. Fortune
Realtors, who has not been made party to
the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
Being aggrieved by the order dated
18.10.2019 the opposite party no. 2
preferred criminal revision no. 674 of 2019
and Criminal Revision Court vide order
dated 13.12.2019 after hearing both the
parties allowed the revision and set aside
the order passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate. The petitioner had got the
interim order dated 10.2.2020 from this
Court by suppressing the material facts.

14. Learned counsel for the opposite
party vehemently submitted that it is no
more a rest-integra that the purpose of the
provision of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is to
prevent a breach of peace at the instance of
the parties who should, like law abiding
citizens, place their disputes before a civil
court and not take law into their own hands.
The provision of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is
intended only as a stop-gap arrangement,
till the rights are not properly adjudicated
by the civil court. Thus, the order of
attachment can be passed if it is considered
that the case is one of emergency but in the
present case the opposite party no. 2 had
settled that he has title over the above land
and he was in peaceful possession after
getting sale deed executed in his favour and
permanent injunction was awarded in
favour of the opposite party no. 2. The land
in question rightly owned and possessed by
the opposite party no. 2, therefore, the
present application filed by the applicant
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is nothing but
abuse of the process of law and thus,
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
prayed to dismiss the present petition and
vacate the interim protection passed by this
Court. In support of his submission learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2
reliedupon the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.
3007-3008 of 2017 (Prabhakar Adiga Vs.
Gowri and others) and judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case
of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of
U.P. and others; AIR 1985 SC 47.

15. I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the record. In
this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
the main prayer of the applicant is to set
aside the judgment and order dated
13.12.2019 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Lucknow and
also prayed to quash the order dated
18.10.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow.

16. The main prayer of learned
counsel for the applicant is that the
possession over the disputed land in
question was handed over on 13.12.2018
but the opposite party no. 2 through
muscles power wanted to disturb the
peaceful possession of the petitioner
regarding which the petitioner lodged the
F.I.R. against the opposite party no. 2. It is
also submitted that it is the trust property.
The trustee has no right to sell the trust
property unless the deed of trust confers
5 All. Mahant Dharmendra Das Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1475
such a power. There is no such express
power conferred by the Trust Act upon the
trustee. Merely because the property is
vested in the trustee, the trustee is not
entitled to sell the same. He is not the full
owner of the property in the real sense of
the term, because there is beneficial interest
and the ownership therein carved out in the
property. The legal ownership which vests
in the trustee is for the purpose of the trust
and administration of the trust. Therefore,
the petitioner submitted before the Court
that no legal title accrue in favour of the
opposite party no. 2.

17. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 submitted before the Court that he
had purchased the property in question from
the then recorded tenure holder Shri Mahant
Bharat Das for sale consideration of Rs.
10,40,000/- by registered sale deed dated
17.7.2006. Another Gata bearing No. 406-Ga
admeasuring 0.978 hectare and the land
bearing Gata No. 333 admeasuring 1.1320
hectare were purchased jointly by mother of
the opposite party no. 2 and the wife of the
opposite party no. 2 by the sale deed executed
on 18.9.2006. Learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 further submitted that till
then the alleged property was in possession of
the opposite party no. 2 and his family
members. The name of the opposite party no.
2 and other family members were also
recorded in revenue records. Till then after
execution of the sale deed in favour of the
opposite party no. 2 and his family members,
they peacefully possessed the land but the
applicant wanted to grab the property
therefore, on behest of the applicants,
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was
started by Sub Divisional Magistrate.

18. I have heard both the parties at
length and perused the record.

19. The provisions of Section 145 (1)
and 145 (2) Cr.P.C. and Section 146 Cr.P.C.
are quoted herein below:

"145. Procedure where dispute
concerning land or water is likely to
cause breach of peace. (1) Whenever an
Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a
report of a police officer or upon other
information that a dispute likely to cause a
breach of the peace exists concerning any
land or water or the boundaries thereof,
within his local jurisdiction, he shall make
an order in writing, stating the grounds of
his being so satisfied, and requiring the
parties concerned in such dispute to attend
his Court in person or by pleader, on a
specified date and time, and to put in
written statements of their respective
claims as respects the fact of actual
possession of the subject of dispute.

(2) For the purposes of this
section, the expression" land or water"
includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops
or other produce of land, and the rents or
profits of any such property.

............

"146 . Power to attach subject
of dispute and to appoint receiver.

(1) If the Magistrate at any time
after making the order under sub- section
(1) of section 145 considers the case to be
one of emergency, or if he decides that
none of the parties was then in such
possession as is referred to in section 145,
or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to
which of them was then in such possession
of the subject of dispute, he may attach the
subject of dispute until a competent Court
has determined the rights of the parties
thereto with regard to the person entitled to
the possession thereof: Provided that such
Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at
any time if he is satisfied that there is no
1476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
longer any likelihood of breach of the
peace with regard to the subject of dispute."

20. The object of the section 145
Cr.P.C. is to bring to an end by a summary
process disputes relating to property, which
are essentially of a civil nature, with a view
to prevent breach of peace. Orders under
the section are mere police orders which do
not concern question of title. The section is
primarily meant for the prevention of
breach of peace where the dispute relates to
the possession of immovable property, and
to provide a speedy remedy by bringing the
parties before the Court and ascertaining
who of them was in actual possession and
to maintain status quo until their rights are
determined by a competent Court. Enquiry
under this section is limited to the question
as to who was in actual possession on the
date of the preliminary order irrespective of
the rights of the parties and the S.D.M. can
not determine right and title of the
properties. Due to this, preliminary order
was passed by the Magistrate under Section
145 Cr.P.C. Notice was also issued and
order was passed under Section 146 (1)
Cr.P.C. for attachment of the property.

21. Being aggrieved with this order of
the learned Magistrate for attachment of
alleged property the opposite party no. 2
preferred the revision and the revision was
allowed by impugned judgment of the
Sessions Court.

22. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 contended that proceedings under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature,
even if the rights of the parties are disputed
before the competent civil court, and right of
any party is protected by the court through
interim injunction then the aggrieved party
should place its grievance before the
competent
civil
court
and
summary
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are not
maintainable. Since the permanent injunction
in favour of the opposite party no. 2 was
passed vide order dated 6.8.2010 passed by
Civil Judge Hawali (Junior Division),
Lucknow in Suit No. 544 of 2009 (Bharat
Singh and others Vs. Arvind Singh and
Parmeshwar Das. The suit was decreed in
favour of the opposite party no. 2 and decree
was
passed
restraining
the
erstwhile
respondent (legal representative of applicant)
permanently not to interfere in the possession
of the opposite party no. 2. The decree for
permanent injunction, which is passed in
favour of the opposite party no. 2, is binding
even against the legal representative of the
opposite party no. 2 of Original Suit No. 544
of 2009. The record indicates that the
applicant failed to indicate that any appeal
filed against the order dated 6.8.2010 passed
by the Civil Judge, Hawali. Since title is in
favour of the opposite party no. 2 is well
settled, therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel for the applicant is that he
was not party of the original suit no. 544 of
2009, so the decree is not binding upon him
have no force. The decree for permanent
injunction shall be enforceable even against
the legal representative. Learned counsel for
the applicant failed to show any suit for
cancellation of sale deed which was executed
in favour of opposite party no. 2 and his
family members.

23. In support of his submission
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer
Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and others;
AIR 1985 SC 472 in which it has been held
that:-

When a civil litigation is pending
for the property wherein the question of
possession is involved and has been
5 All. Mahant Dharmendra Das Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1477
adjudicated, we see hardly any justification
for
initiating
a
parallel
criminal
proceeding under Section 145 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. 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 proceeding 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 dependency 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 of Criminal Procedure has been
initiated and the property in dispute has
been attached.

In support of his submission
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
also relied upon judgment dated 27.3.2018
of this Court passed in the case of Ganesh
Prasad & 5 others Vs. State of U.P. & 4
others in which it has been held that:-

13. After having heard at length
the rival contentions and having perused
the record, this Court is of the opinion that
the learned SDM should not have drawn
the proceedings under section 145 (1) or
146 (1) Cr.P.C., when the matter was
pending before competent courts for getting
the title over the said land decided as well
for seeking injunction. The revisionistssecond party have admittedly moved
revenue
court
for
getting
their
ownership/title declared over the disputed
property vis-a-vis the opposite party Nos. 2
and 3-first party, while the opposite party
Nos. 2 and 3-first party have moved Civil
Court for seeking permanent injunction
against the revisionists, which proceedings
are pending. It is also on record that these
proceedings were pending from prior to the
initiation of proceedings under section 145
(1) or 146 (1) Cr. P.C., therefore, the
learned SDM ought to have shunned
entertaining any application for such relief.
It is also apparent from evidence on record
that no emergent situation has been shown
to exist which compelled the learned SDM
to attach the property in dispute. Not even
an iota of evidence is there which would
reflect that there was any kind of
emergency of compelling nature for the
SDM to pass an order for attachment of the
disputed property. It would be pertinent to
refer to the position of law to substantiate
the decision of this Court.

14. The reliance is placed by the
learned counsel for the revisionist-second
party upon (2002) 3 SCC 700, Ranbir
Singh vs Dalbir Singh and others, wherein
the order of the High Court setting aside
the order passed by SDM under section
section 145 (1) and 146 (1) Cr. P.C., was
upheld holding that while dealing with a
proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C., the
Court has to be concerned only with
possession of the property in dispute on the
date
of
the
preliminary
order
and
dispossession, if any, within two months
prior to that date. The Court is not required
to decide either title to the property or
rights of possession of the same. It was also
found by the Apex Court that both the
1478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
parties had filed suits seeking decree of
permanent injunction against each other
and in suit filed by the appellant, an order
of interim injunction had been passed and
an objection had been filed by the
respondent No. 1, in such a situation there
was no need for the SDM to draw
proceedings under section 145 (1) and 146
(1) Cr.P.C., it was nothing but an abuse of
process of Court. The relevant paragraph
of the said judgment is quoted herein
below:

"8 . However, the High Court was
in error in dealing with the Revision
Petition as if it was exercising appellate
jurisdiction. The High Court has dealt with
the developments in the case relating to the
acquisition of title, the allegations of
fraudulent transfers made by Karnail Singh
and M/s. Homestead and the circumstances
in which the suit was dismissed as
withdrawn. Keeping in view the limited
scope of the proceeding under section 145,
Cr. P.C. these questions were not material
for determination of the main issues in the
case. The Court, while dealing with a
proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C., is
mainly concerned with possession of the
property in dispute on the date of the
preliminary order and dispossession, if any,
within 2 months prior to that date; the
Court is not required to decide either title
to the property or rights of possession of
the same. The question for determination
before the High Court in the present case
was one relating to the validity or
otherwise of the preliminary order passed
by the learned Sub - Divisional Magistrate
under section 145 (1) Cr. P.C. and
sustainability of the order of attachment
passed under section 146 (1) Cr. P.C.. For
deciding the questions it was neither
necessary nor relevant for the High Court
to have considered the matter relating to
title to and right of possession of the
property. Further, both the parties in the
case have filed suits seeking decree of
permanent injunction against each other
and in the suit filed by the appellant an
order of interim injunction has been passed
and an objection petition has been filed by
respondent No. 1. The suits and the interim
order are pending further consideration
before the Civil Court. "

24. In view of the above facts and
circumstances and after considering the
above cited law, it appears that opposite
party
no.
2
possessed
the
peaceful
possession over the disputed land since
2006 and presently the legal title of the
above land in question is in favour of the
opposite party no. 2 and which is never
disturbed by any civil court. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge/revisional court
had rightly found that the title as well as
possession over the land in question is
already settled in favour of the opposite
party no. 2 ( Bharat Singh). Thus, the
proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is
not maintainable and there appears no
incorrectness, impropriety or illegality in
passing the impugned order, so on the basis
of the above discussion findings of the
Revisional Court dated 13.12.2019 in
passing of the impugned order appears to
be justified and proper. Thus, in my
considered
opinion
that
the
present
application filed by the applicant under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and
not maintainable, therefore, the present
petition is liable to be dismissed.

25. Interim protection granted
earlier shall be vacated forthwith.

26.

The
application
under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
5 All. Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1479
(2022)05ILR A1479
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2763 of 2022

Anuj Kumar @ Sanjay & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Rajiva Dubey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Civil Law - SC/ST Act,1989 - Section 14
A(1)-Interim order passed in relation to an
offence in S.C./S.T. Act-will come in category of
order provided u/s 14 A(1) of SC/St Act-against
which only Appeal shall lie before the High Court
both on facts and law-

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI, (2017) 14 SCC
809

2. Madhu Limaye Vs St. of Mah. (1997) 4 SCC
551

3. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., (2021) 10 SCC 773
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2.
 Applicants
have
filed
this
application with following prayers:-

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully
prayed in the interest of justice that this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow this application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. and
quash the impugned charge-sheet and
summoning order dated 16-2-2022, passed
by Learned II Additional Sessions Judge/
Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur
Kheri summoning the applicants to face
trial vide Special Sessions Trial No.
93/2022,
Crime
No.
314/2020,
U/s
323/504/506 I.P.C. & 3(1) ?, ? of the Act,
Police
Station-
Neemgaon,
District-
Lakhimpur Kheri, contained as Annexures
No. 1 and 2 to this application.

It is further prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the entire criminal proceedings
pending against the applicants in the court
of Learned II Additional Sessions Judge/
Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur
Kheri vide Special Sessions Trial No.
93/2022, Crime No. 314/ 2020, U/s
323/504/506 I.P.C. & 3(1) ?, ? of the Act,
Police
Station-
Neemgaon,
District-
Lakhimpur Kheri in pursuance of the
impugned charge sheet and summoning
order, contained as Annexures No. 1 and 2
to this application.

It is further prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue
a
direction
commanding
the
concerned court below to decide the bail
application of the applicants providing
them the benefit of the legal proposition
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
reported case Satender Kumar Antil vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation & Another,
2021(4) Crimes 139 (S.C.)."

3. In Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI,
(2017) 14 SCC 809, three Judge Bench
of Hon'ble Apex Court has made
following observations in para nos. 21,
22 and 23: