# Mahesh Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1599 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-11-19 - **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45275 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. Waqf Act, 1995, Section 85 - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of matter relating to waqf, waqf property - Civil Procedure Code, Section 9, Order 7 Rule 11 - suit property shown in the revenue records as a "kabristan" (graveyar ## Text 1600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the Courts. 29. After considering the facts of the case as well as the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that principles of natural justice was complied by the Bank by giving a show cause notice and considering the reply of petitioner before cancelling the registration. The impugned order cannot be set-aside on the ground of the same having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Apart from this, the petitioner has failed to indicates as to how he was prejudicial in not being afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. We do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner in this regard. 30. For the reasons stated herein above, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the appellate order dated 26/08/19 and the order of cancellation of registration dated 30/10/18. 31. The petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------- (2020)1ILR 1599 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J. Matters Under Article-227 (Crl.)No. 6995 of 2019 Mahesh Kumar & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Ved Prakash Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 245 - CJM u/s 245 Cr.P.C dropped Section 452 IPC, though offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC were prima facie present - In revision Sessions Judge held that by framing charge under Section 452 of IPC, no loss will be caused to the applicants - Held - Ingress & trespass was said by the complainant in his own portion of premises where he was residing and on the basis of it, direction was given by the learned Sessions Judge. Matter Under Article 227 dismissed. (E-5) (Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.) 1. This Application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the Applicants, Mahesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Rudresh, against State of U.P. and Dinesh Kumar Agrawal, with a prayer for setting aside impugned order, dated 18.4.2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar, in Criminal Revision, filed against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, dated 15.3.2016, passed in Complaint Case No. 2190 of 2010, Dinesh Kumar Agrawal vs. Mahesh Kumar and others. 2. Learned counsel for applicants argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 1 All. Mahesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1601 2190 of 2010, while deciding Application, moved, under Section 245 of Cr.P.C., held that offence, punishable under Section 452 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), was not made out, at the stage of evidence, recorded, under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., though offences, punishable, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC were prima facie present. Hence, offence, under Section 452 of IPC was dropped. Against this order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, Criminal Revision was preferred by complaint, Dinesh Kmar Agrawal, wherein, learned Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar, admitted revision, relying upon version of Opposite party no.2, and came to conclusion that by framing charge under Section 452 of IPC, no loss will be caused to the applicants. Thus, directed for framing of charge by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Against this order, passed in revision, this Application, for invoking jurisdiction of superintendence of the High Court, over subordinate courts, regarding misuse of process of law, has been moved, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application. 4. Heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the impugned order as well as materials placed on record. 5. From very perusal of impugned order, dated 18.4.2016 of Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar, it is apparent that statement of complainant, PW-1, recorded under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., on 3.3.2016, was entered in it, wherein, complainant has admitted that complainant, Dinesh Kumar Agrawal and present applicants, Mahesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Rudresh are real brothers. All of them were residing in a single premises, side by side, after partition amongst themselves, though no separate house number was yet allotted and on the basis of this statement, offence of criminal trespass, punishable, under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. was held to be not made out by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, but his finding has not been changed by learned Sessions Judge, rather a direction for decision at the time of judicial decision making, regarding offence, punishable under Section 452 of IPC, was given. 6. No doubt, complainant and three accused persons were residing in one and common premises, but it was specifically said that there had been a mutual partition in that premises, but no separate house number was allotted, but ingress and trespass was said by the complainant in his own portion of premises where he was residing and on the basis of it, direction was given by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, there remains nothing illegal or irregular in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. More so, accused persons are having opportunity to make crossexamination of witnesses of prosecution on this point and it is a question of fact to be seen by the Trial court on the basis of evidence led before it. Hence, there remains nothing for any indulgence to be granted by this Court, in exercises of power of superintendence, over subordinate court, vested in the High Court, by way of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, this proceeding, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed, but with a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar that, while recording his finding, he will not be 1602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES influenced, either by the findings of learned Sessions Judge or observations made by this Court, hereinabove, in this order. Judicial decision making shall be taken on the basis of evidence led before the Magistrate. ---------- (2020)1ILR 1601 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Matters Under Article-227 No. 8621 of 2019 Siraj Ahmad @ Sirajuddin & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Bashir Ahmad Khan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, Sri Ravi Agrawal A. Waqf Act, 1995, Section 85 - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of matter relating to waqf, waqf property - Civil Procedure Code, Section 9, Order 7 Rule 11 - suit property shown in the revenue records as a "kabristan" (graveyard) - No material to show that suit property was a waqf property by way of its inclusion in the list of auqaf, published in the Official Gazette or registered as waqf before - Revenue records do not confer title - S. 85 will not be applicable - Jurisdiction of Civil Court, not barred. (Para 22 & 23) Matter Under Article 227 dismissed. (E-5) List of cases cited: - 1. Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & Ors. Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma & Anr 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286 2. Dhulabhai Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1969 SC 78 3.Secretary of State Vs. Mask & CompanyAIR 1940 PC 105 4. FirmSeth Radha Kishan (Deceased) represented by Hari Kishan Vs. the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Ludhiana AIR 1963 SC 1547 5. Smt. Ganga Bai Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors(1974) 2 SCC 393 6.Dhannalal Vs.Kalawatibai&Ors(2002) 6 SCC 1 6 7. Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand & Ors (1993) 4 SCC 349 8.Jattu Ram Vs. HakamSingh (1993) 4 SCC 403 9. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors v 10.Sayed EkramSaha & Ors. Vs. Debendra Kum ar Pati & Ors AIR 2018 Ori 47 11.Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr.Vs. Rajendra Sh ankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 12.RadheyShyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors (2015) 5 SCC 423 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Sri Bashir Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ravi Agrawal alongwith Sri Rakesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking a prayer to set aside the order dated 24.11.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Hapur in Original Suit No.199 of 2017 (Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. Vs. Siraj Ahmad & Ors.) whereby the application (Paper No.90Ga)