# Mahboob & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 704
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-29
- **Case number:** Crl. Revision No. 2156 of 2016
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahboob-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-46866
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 401/397 - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 498-A, 323,
504,506 & Dowry Prohibition Act,1961Section 3⁄4- setting aside the convictionParties settled their disputes and decided
for a one time alimony and live separately
with their husbands-the dispute between
the parties was a matrimonial dispute- the
revisionists have been acquitted of the
charges levelled against them. (Para 1 to
26)

B. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the
High Court to quash a FIR or Criminal
proceedings
on
the
ground
that
a
settlement has been arrived at between
the offender and the victim is not the
same as the invocation of jurisdiction for
the purpose of compounding an offence
u/s 320 of the Code. The power to quash
u/s 482 is attracted even if the offence is
non-compoundable. (15 to 22)

C. Criminal cases involving offences which
arise
from
commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
partnership
or
similar
transactions
with
an essentially
civil
flavour may in appropriate situations fall
for quashing where parties have settled
the dispute. (Para 16)

The revision is allowed. ( E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)02ILR A704
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Crl. Revision No. 2156 of 2016

Mahboob & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, Sri Rajeev
Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Gaurav Kakkar, Sri Vipul Kumar
Singh, Sri Ashutosh Tiwari

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 401/397 - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 498-A, 323,
504,506 & Dowry Prohibition Act,1961Section 3⁄4- setting aside the convictionParties settled their disputes and decided
for a one time alimony and live separately
with their husbands-the dispute between
the parties was a matrimonial dispute- the
revisionists have been acquitted of the
charges levelled against them. (Para 1 to
26)

B. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the
High Court to quash a FIR or Criminal
proceedings
on
the
ground
that
a
settlement has been arrived at between
the offender and the victim is not the
same as the invocation of jurisdiction for
the purpose of compounding an offence
u/s 320 of the Code. The power to quash
u/s 482 is attracted even if the offence is
non-compoundable. (15 to 22)

C. Criminal cases involving offences which
arise
from
commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
partnership
or
similar
transactions
with
an essentially
civil
flavour may in appropriate situations fall
for quashing where parties have settled
the dispute. (Para 16)

The revision is allowed. ( E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj.,(2012)10 SCC 303

2. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur & ors. Vs St. of Guj. & anr. (2017) 9
SCC 641

3. Bitan Sengupta & anr. Vs St. of W. B. & anr.
(2018) 18 SCC 366,

4. B.S. Joshi Vs St. of Har. (2003) 4 SCC 675

5. A.R. Antulay Vs R. S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC
602

6. Montreal Street Rly. Co. Vs Normadin (1917)
AC 170

7. St.of Guj. Vs Ram Prakash P. Puri (1969) 3
SCC 156

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Heard Chandra Prakash Singh,
learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri
Ashutosh Tiwari, learned Advocate holding
brief of Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel
for the Opposite Party No. 2 and Sri Sanjay
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

2. The trial court record was
summoned which has been received on
11.01.2018, as per the office report. The
same has also been perused.

3. The present revision has been
preferred against the judgment and order
dated 06.08.2015 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal
Case No. 68 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs.
Mahboob
and
others)
under
2 All. Mahboob & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
705
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rabpura
District Gautam Budh Nagar (concerning
Case Crime No. 101 of 2012, under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4
D.P. Act, Police Station Rabpura, District
Gautam
Budh
Nagar),
whereby,
the
revisionists
have
been
convicted
and
sentenced under Section 498-A I.P.C. to 2
years simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1000/-
and in default of payment of fine to one
month simple imprisonment, under Section
323
I.P.C.
to
06
months
simple
imprisonment, fine of Rs. 500/- and in default
of payment of fine to one week simple
imprisonment, under Section 3/4 Dowry
Prohibition
Act
to
1
year
simple
imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1000/- and in
default of payment of fine to one month
simple imprisonment. The sentences have
been ordered to run concurrently. The
accused persons have been acquitted of the
charges levelled against them under Sections
504, 506 I.P.C. vide the same judgment also
against the judgement and order dated
24.05.2016 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge / F.T.C., Gautam Budh Nagar in
Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2015 (Mahboob
and Others Vs. State of U.P.) by which the
accused persons have been convicted and
sentenced under Section 498-A I.P.C. to 2
years simple imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1000/-
and in default of payment of fine to one
month simple imprisonment, under Section
323
I.P.C.
to
06
months
simple
imprisonment, fine of Rs. 500/- and in default
of payment of fine to one week simple
imprisonment, under Section 4 Dowry
Prohibition
Act
to
1
year
simple
imprisonment, fine of Rs. 1000/- and in
default of payment of fine to one month
simple imprisonment.

4. The issue in the present matter
raised is on a very small compass. The
Opposite Party No.2 / Kallu Khan is the
first informant of the present matter. As per
the first information report lodged by the
opposite party No.2, his daughters namely
Meena and Gulshan were married on
07.05.2006
to
Mahboob
and
Shahid
respectively, who are real brothers and in
the marriage he had spent money and given
gifts and dowry as per his status. Out of the
wedlock of Mahboob and Smt. Meena, a
girl child named Heena was born and from
the wedlock of Shahid and Smt. Gulshan, a
boy named Kauki was born. They were
living peacefully. Later on, when it came to
be known that the land of the first
informant is being acquired, the in-laws of
his daughters started troubling them and
started beating them and used to demand of
Rs. 5 lakhs each and a plot each for both
the husbands and stated that the same be
given or else they will not be permitted to
live in the house. There used to be regular
beating of the daughters of the first
informant who continued to face the same
due to social fears and used to console their
in-laws but they did not mend their ways.
On 17.11.2010, both the daughters of the
first informant were assaulted and were left
at a crossing at Rabpura from where they
with great difficulty reached their maternal
house and while crying and narrated the
entire incident to her father on which many
people of the society were called and with
the help of them tried to settle the dispute
in their matrimonial house but their in-laws
did not accept the same and continued to
press their demand and said that till the
time money and plot is not given they will
not keep his daughters. It is further stated
that Mahboob the husband of Smt. Meena
married some other lady for which his
family members also agreed and the family
members of the first informant were even
threatened of dire consequences. The first
information report was thus registered.
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. In the trial Kallu Khan the first
informant and the father of the two
daughters was examined as P.W.-1, Smt.
Gulshan was examined as P.W.-2, Smt.
Meena was examined as P.W.-3 and Sub
Inspector
Kaluram
Chaudhary
was
examined
as
P.W.-4
who
was
the
Investigating Officer of the matter. The
accused persons in their defense had come
up with a denial.

6. After conviction by the trial court,
the appeal filed by the accused persons was
also dismissed by the Appellate Court but
from perusal of the judgement and order
dated 24.05.2016 passed by the Appellate
Court, it is apparent that the accused
persons have not been convicted under
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
though
the
Appellate
Court
in
its
judgement and order dated 24.05.2016 has
stated that the appeal is dismissed and the
judgement and order of the court below is
affirmed but it appears that the conviction
and sentence under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act has been maintained but
there is no reference of the conviction and
sentence under Section 3 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.

7. The present revision has been
admitted vide order dated 02.08.2016
passed by this Court, though on the
question of sentence only.

8. During the pendency of the present
revision, Smt. Gulshan filed an affidavit
dated 01.08.2017 before the competent
officer mentioning therein that she has
entered into compromise with her husband
and in-laws and she does not want anyone to
be convicted. The said affidavit is filed as
Annexure- 1 at page 8 of the supplementary
affidavit dated 14.8.2017. A compromise was
reduced to writing which has been entered
into between the parties in which Shahid is
the first party and Smt. Gulshan is the second
party and the same was filed before the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh
Nagar in Application No. 215 of 2016. The
certified copy of the same is annexed at page
16 of the said supplementary affidavit. The
concerned court verified the said compromise
and passed an order of verification of the
same on 01.08.2017. The parties therein were
identified by their respective counsels.

9. Even, Smt. Meena filed an affidavit
dated 01.08.2017 before the competent
officer mentioning therein that she has
entered into compromise with her husband
and in-laws and she does not want anyone to
be convicted. The said affidavit is filed as
Annexure- 1 at page 9 of the supplementary
affidavit dated 14.08.2017. A compromise
was reduced to writing which has been
entered into between the parties in which
Mahboob is the first party and Smt. Meena is
the second party and the same was filed
before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Gautam Budh Nagar in Application No. 215
of 2016. The certified copy of the same is
annexed at page 11 of the said supplementary
affidavit. The concerned court verified the
said compromise and passed an order of
verification of the same on 01.08.2017. The
parties therein were identified by their
respective counsels.

10. Since two cases under Section 125
Cr.P.C. were filed by the two ladies and the
court below had passed an order directing
their husbands to pay maintenance and
subsequently proceedings under Section 128
Cr.P.C. were filed which were pending
before the court below, the said compromise
was filed in the said proceedings.

11. A joint affidavit dated 03.02.2018
sworn by Noor Mohammad the revisionist
2 All. Mahboob & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
707
No. 3 and Kallu Khan, the opposite party
No. 2 has also been filed in the present
revision annexing the said two affidavits.
The compromise as filed in the court of the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam
Budh Nagar and the orders of verification
of the said compromise as passed by the
said court has also been filed in the said
affidavit.

12. In paragraph 2 of both the
compromises, it has been specifically
mentioned that Case Crime No. 101 of
2012, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Police Station Rabpura District Gautam
Budh Nagar which was lodged resulted into
an order of conviction which has been
passed and the matter is pending before this
Court and the parties have settled the said
case also and will assist the accused
persons in getting the said case decided. By
means of the said compromise, both the
ladies have decided for a one time alimony
and have decided to live separately with
their husbands.

13. This Court under its revisional
jurisdiction has been knocked to set-aside
the conviction of the revisionists as the
parties have entered into a settlement.
The dispute between the parties was a
matrimonial dispute.

14. The Apex Court in the case of
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012)
10 SCC 303 in para 58 has held as
under:-

"58. Where High Court quashes a
criminal proceeding having regard to the fact
that dispute between the offender and victim
has been settled although offences are not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will be
an exercise in futility and justice in the case
demands that the dispute between the parties
is put to an end and peace is restored;
securing the ends of justice being the ultimate
guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts
which have harmful effect on the public and
consist in wrong doing that seriously
endangers and threatens well-being of society
and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only
because he and the victim have settled the
dispute amicably or that the victim has been
paid compensation, yet certain crimes have
been made compoundable in law, with or
without permission of the Court. In respect of
serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity,
etc; or other offences of mental depravity
under IPC or offences of moral turpitude
under special statutes, like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that
capacity, the settlement between offender and
victim can have no legal sanction at all.
However,
certain
offences
which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil
flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile,
commercial, financial, partnership or such
like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony, particularly relating to dowry,
etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is
basically to victim and the offender and
victim have settled all disputes between them
amicably, irrespective of the fact that such
offences have not been made compoundable,
the High Court may within the framework of
its inherent power, quash the criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if
it is satisfied that on the face of such
settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of
offender being convicted and by not quashing
the criminal proceedings, justice shall be
casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
The above list is illustrative and not
exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own
facts and no hard-and-fast category can be
prescribed."
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. Further in para 61 of the judgment
in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the
Apex Court has further held that where the
parties have entered into compromise
particularly in the matters predominantly of
civil nature, matrimonial relating to dowry
and family dispute etc. which are of private
and personal nature, the High Court may
quash the proceedings in such matters. Para
61 of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:

"61. The position that emerges from
the above discussion can be summarised
thus: the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from
the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section
320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it
has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court. In what
cases power to quash the criminal
proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim
have settled their dispute would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case
and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power,
the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the
victim or victim's family and the offender
have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have serious
impact
on
society.
Similarly,
any
compromise
between
the
victim
and
offender in relation to the offences under
special
statutes
like
Prevention
of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis
for
quashing
criminal
proceedings
involving such offences. But the criminal
cases
having
overwhelmingly
and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on
different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile,
civil, partnership or such like transactions
or the offences arising out of matrimony
relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute.
In this category of cases, High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the
offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put
accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to
him by not quashing the criminal case
despite full and complete settlement and
compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to
the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement
and compromise between the victim and
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends
of justice, it is appropriate that criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to
the above question(s) is in affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction
to
quash
the
criminal
proceeding."

16. Further, in the case of Parbatbhai
Aahir
@
Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat
2 All. Mahboob & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
709
and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Apex
Court has laid down the category of cases
in which the offences can be compounded,
the said guidelines are extracted hereinbelow:

"16. The broad principles which
emerge from the precedents on the subject,
may be summarised in the following
propositions:

(16.1) Section 482 preserves the
inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any
court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It
only recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court.

(16.2)
The
invocation
of
the
jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
First Information Report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement
has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding
an
offence.
While
compounding an offence, the power of the
court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.

(16.3) In forming an opinion whether
a criminal proceeding or complaint should
be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would
justify the exercise of the inherent power.

(16.4) While the inherent power of the
High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude
it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends
of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court.

(16.5) The decision as to whether a
complaint or First Information Report
should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated.

(16.6) In the exercise of the power
under Section 482 and while dealing with a
plea that the dispute has been settled, the
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous
and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences.

(16.7) As distinguished from serious
offences, there may be criminal cases
which
have
an
overwhelming
or
predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing in so far as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash
is concerned.

(16.8)
Criminal
cases
involving
offences which arise from commercial,
financial,
mercantile,
partnership
or
similar transactions with an essentially
civil flavour may in appropriate situations
fall for quashing where parties have settled
the dispute.

(16.9) In such a case, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceeding if in
view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is
remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would cause oppression and
prejudice;
and
(16.10) There is yet an exception to the
principle set out in propositions 16.8 and
16.9. above. Economic offences involving
710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the financial and economic well-being of
the state have implications which lie
beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in an activity
akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the
act complained of upon the financial or
economic
system
will
weigh
in
the
balance."

17. In the case of Bitan Sengupta and
another Vs. State of West Bengal and
another: (2018) 18 SCC 366, the Apex
Court has held that since the parties have
settled the matter and they have decided to
keep harmony between them to enable
them to live with peace and love and have
no grievance whatsoever and want the
accused persons to get acquitted from the
case and have undertaken not to indulge in
any other litigation against each other and
withdraw all the complaints pending
between them before the court as such
going by the spirit of the law laid down in
the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana:
(2003) 4 SCC 675, the Apex Court held
that the High Court should have accepted
the
settlement
and
compounded
the
offence. Paragraph 6 and 7 of the said
judgement are quoted herein below:-

"6. As per the appellants, the parties
have settled the matter, as they have
decided to keep harmony between them to
enable them to live with peace and love.
The compromise records that respondent
no.2 have no grievances whatsoever
against the appellants and want both the
appellants to get acquitted from the cases.
Further, both the parties have undertaken
not to indulge in any litigation against each
other and withdraw all the complaints
pending between them before the court.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances and
going by the spirit of the law laid down by
this Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors.
V. State of Haryana , we are of the opinion
that the High Court should have accepted
the
settlement
and
compounded
the
offences. It is, more so, when the settlement
between the parties, who were husband and
wife, was even acted upon as the parties
took mutual divorce on that basis."

18. In the present case, the situation
as emerges is what was in the case of Bitan
Sengupta (supra) wherein the parties had
settled their dispute and had entered into a
settlement, whereby, it was expressly
decided that the accused persons be
acquitted
from
the
case.
The
said
compromise has been duly verified in the
proceedings before the Family Court.

19. This Court while exercising
powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is also
vested with powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
Court can also exercise its powers exdebito justitiae to reach to a judgment to
secure the ends of justice between the
parties.

20. A Bench of Seven Judges of the
Apex Court in the case of A.R. Antulay Vs.
R.S. Nayak: (1988) 2 SCC 602 have
pointed out that no man is above the law,
but at the same time no man can be denied
his rights under the constitutions and the
laws, and no man should suffer a wrong by
technical and procedure irregularities. It
was observed referring to the judgment of
Montreal Street Railway Company Vs.
Normadin: 1917 AC 170 as follows:

"All rules of court are nothing but
provisions intended to secure proper
administration of justice. It is, therefore,
2 All. Mahboob & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
711
essential that they should be made to serve
and be subordinate to that purpose".

It is further observed in the said
judgment referring to the judgment of State
of Gujarat Vs. Ram Prakash P.Puri:
(1969) 3 SCC 156 as follows:-

"Procedure has been described to be a
handmaid and not a mistress of law,
intended to subserve and facilitate the
cause of justice and not to govern or
obstruct it. Like all rules of procedure, this
rule demand a construction which would
promote this cause."

21. This Court thus by exercising its
powers sets aside the judgment and order of
conviction dated 06.08.2015 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in
Criminal Case No. 68 of 2013 (State of
U.P. Vs. Mahboob and others) under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station
Rabpura District Gautam Budh Nagar
(concerning Case Crime No. 101 of 2012,
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station
Rabpura, District Gautam Budh Nagar and
the judgement and order dated 24.05.2016
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge /
F.T.C., Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal
Appeal No. 62 of 2015 (State Vs. Mahboob
and Others). The revisionists are acquitted
of the charges levelled against them.

22. The revision is thus allowed.

23. This Court vide its order dated
05.01.2021 had cancelled the bail of the
revisionists granted to them vide order
dated 02.08.2016 passed by this Court. In
compliance of the order dated 05.01.2021,
the revisionist No.1 / Mahboob has been
arrested on 16.01.2021.

24. An application for recall of the
order dated 05.01.2021 being Criminal
Misc. Recall Application No. 9 of 2021 has
been filed in which vide order dated
25.01.2021, the operation of the order dated
05.01.2021 passed by this Court has been
directed to be kept in abeyance in so far as
it relates to the revisionist No.2 / Shahid,
revisionist No.3 / Noor Mohammad and
revisionist No.4 / Rahishan only.

25. The revisionist No.1 / Mahboob is
in jail in compliance of the order dated
05.01.2021. The order in so far it relates to
revisionist No. No.2 / Shahid, revisionist
No.3 / Noor Mohammad and revisionist
No.4 / Rahishan are concerned has been
stayed to be in operation vide order dated
25.01.2021.

26. Since the present revision has
been allowed and the revisionists have been
acquitted of the charges levelled against
them, the revisionist No.1 / Mahboob is
directed to be released from jail forthwith
unless wanted in any other case.

27. In so far as the revisionist No.
No.2 / Shahid, revisionist No.3 / Noor
Mohammad
and
revisionist
No.4
/
Rahishan are concerned, as they have also
been acquitted of the charges levelled
against them, the order dated 05.01.2021
issuing non-bailable warrants is recalled in
so far as they are concerned.

28. Office is directed to return the
trial court records to the trial court
forthwith.

29. A copy of this judgment be also
certified to the concerned District and
Sessions Judge for its compliance and
necessary action.
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad.

31. The computer generated copy of
such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

32. The concerned Court /Authority
/Official shall verify the authenticity of
such computerized copy of the order from
the
official
website
of
High
Court
Allahabad and shall make a declaration of
such verification in writing.

Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. -
2156 of 2016

Revisionist :- Mahboob And 3 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and
Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra
Prakash Singh

Counsel
for
Opposite
Party
:-
G.A.,Gaurav Kakkar

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

In
Ref:
Criminal
Misc.
Recall
Application No. 9 of 2021

Recall Application is allowed.

For order, see order of date 29.01.2021
passed in separate sheet.
----------
(2021)02ILR A712
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2021

BEFORE

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

Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 14647 of 2020

Indrakali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.K. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Civil Law-Petition to direct respondent to
hand
over
possession
of
land
-to
Petitioner-in compliance to order of SDM
u/s 145 Cr.P.C.-property was attached
and delivered into joint supardagi-when
case
came
for
determination
-S.H.O.
directed by SDM to ensure delivery of
possession
of
attached
property
to
Petitioner
-Court's
commissioner
appointed for delivering of possession.

W.P. disposed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The petitioner has come up praying
that a mandamus be issued, directing the
respondent
Authorities
to
hand
over
possession
of
Arazi
no.148-Kha,
admeasuring 120ft. X 35ft. back to the
petitioner, in compliance with the order of
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Meja,
Prayagraj, dated 12.08.2011, passed in
Case no. 4/4/4/9/12/13/14/27/30 of 201011, Indrakali vs. Uchit Narayan and others,
within a determinate period of time.

2. Heard Mr. D.K. Ojha, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anurag Rai,
learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
non-party, Smt. Gudiya, under Chapter
XXII Rule 5A of the Rules of the Court and
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, learned
A.G.A. appearing on behalf of respondent
nos.1 to 4. No one appears on behalf of
respondent nos.5 to 8.

3. The facts, leading to the present
writ petition, are that the Sub-Divisional