# Manoj Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 702
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-07
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7051 of 2022
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Syed Waiz Mian
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49267
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India- Article 226- Indian
Penal Code, 1860- Sections 419, 420, 467,
468 & 471 - For quashing the impugned
First Information Report- The allegations
in the First Information Report taken on
face value give rise to disputes of pure
civil nature- No civil suit has been
instituted-
The
will
bequeathing
the
property upon the petitioner is a duly
registered document. The validity of the
will is yet to be challenged before the
competent
court.
The
mutation
proceedings are summary proceedings
and does not create any title upon any
person,
rather,
acknowledges
the
possession of the property and for the
purposes of revenue collection- Unless the
will is challenged before the competent
court, the criminal proceedings has been
initiated
maliciously
to
coerce
the
petitioner to enter into a compromise out
side the court. It is a case of pure civil
nature given criminal colour with ulterior
motive.

Settled law that where the allegations made in
the F.I.R disclose a purely civil dispute, and
instead of availing the remedy before the
competent civil court the criminal proceedings
have been instituted maliciously as a tool of
coercion and harassment, then such F.I.R
deserves to be quashed.

Constitution of India- Article 226- Power
to quashment of process and exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/ under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is for the purpose
that Criminal proceeding ought not to be
permitted to be used as weapon of
harassment. Hence, the Court is satisfied
that Criminal Proceedings amounting to
an abuse of process of law or that it
amounts to bring pressure upon the
accused in exercise of inherent powers,
such proceedings can be quashed.

Where apparently the criminal proceedings
amount to an abuse of process of law or that it
amounts to bringing pressure upon accused
then the same ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into weapon of harassment and
should be quashed under the exercise of powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or
Section 482 Cr.Pc. (Para 21, 23, 24, 28, 33)

Criminal Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

## Text

702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 will
also enure for the benefit of the present
accused-petitioners. The Judgement of this
Court, though of single Judge rendered in
the matter of Pramod and another Vs.
State of U.P. and another decided on
23.02.2021 will also enure for the benefit
of the accused-petitioners. It is inherent
powers of the High Court, in such matters
that can be invoked where the Court is
satisfied that the parties have willingly
decided to bury their dispute.

8. It is very clear that the petitioners
have prima facie committed the said
offence. Perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that
the same was registered on the basis that
cognizable offence is disclosed and thus
there is no force in the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioners that no
cognizable offence is made out against the
petitioners.
The
fact
that
the
first
informant/respondent no.3 as well as the
petitioners have compromised the matter
before the village peoples, who have also
given an affidavit, which are annexed
collectively as Annexure-3 to the writ
petition. As the first informant/respondent
no.3 has not been medically examined by
the police and therefore the provisions of
Section 376 I.P.C. as alleged cannot be said
to be made out. The offence stems out
discordance, which is a reason for lodging
of the impugned F.I.R, but it is shown that
the respondent no.3/first informant decided
to give up the case and therefore, as the
offence under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
are compoundable, the same are permitted
as compounded. So far as the Sections 376,
354 I.P.C. is concerned, it cannot be said
that any offence is committed as the victim
has not been medically examined and also
in view of the fact that once the parties
have decided that they do not wish to
contest the matter, the F.I.R. ought to have
be quashed. The Judgement rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajeev
Kourav Vs. Baisahab MANU 0163 SC
2022 will also enure for the benefit of the
present petitioners.

9. In view of above, the first
information report dated 21.04.2022 for the
offence committed on 01.10.2021 i.e.
before six months, registered in Case Crime
No. 93 of 2022 under Sections 376, 354,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Mainather, District Moradabad, is quashed.

10. The petition is allowed.

11. The Police officials shall not take
any further steps in the matter.

12. We are thankful to Sri Sunil
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Ajay Kumar Maurya,
learned counsel for the respondent no.4 for
rendering their assistance to this Court.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 702
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7051 of 2022

Manoj Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, Sri Durgesh Kumar
Singh, Sri Shyam Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Rajendra Singh
9 All. Manoj Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
703
Constitution of India- Article 226- Indian
Penal Code, 1860- Sections 419, 420, 467,
468 & 471 - For quashing the impugned
First Information Report- The allegations
in the First Information Report taken on
face value give rise to disputes of pure
civil nature- No civil suit has been
instituted-
The
will
bequeathing
the
property upon the petitioner is a duly
registered document. The validity of the
will is yet to be challenged before the
competent
court.
The
mutation
proceedings are summary proceedings
and does not create any title upon any
person,
rather,
acknowledges
the
possession of the property and for the
purposes of revenue collection- Unless the
will is challenged before the competent
court, the criminal proceedings has been
initiated
maliciously
to
coerce
the
petitioner to enter into a compromise out
side the court. It is a case of pure civil
nature given criminal colour with ulterior
motive.

Settled law that where the allegations made in
the F.I.R disclose a purely civil dispute, and
instead of availing the remedy before the
competent civil court the criminal proceedings
have been instituted maliciously as a tool of
coercion and harassment, then such F.I.R
deserves to be quashed.

Constitution of India- Article 226- Power
to quashment of process and exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and/ under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is for the purpose
that Criminal proceeding ought not to be
permitted to be used as weapon of
harassment. Hence, the Court is satisfied
that Criminal Proceedings amounting to
an abuse of process of law or that it
amounts to bring pressure upon the
accused in exercise of inherent powers,
such proceedings can be quashed.

Where apparently the criminal proceedings
amount to an abuse of process of law or that it
amounts to bringing pressure upon accused
then the same ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into weapon of harassment and
should be quashed under the exercise of powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or
Section 482 Cr.Pc. (Para 21, 23, 24, 28, 33)

Criminal Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs St. of Kar., 2021 SCC
Online SC 976

2. Prof. RK Vijayasarathy Vs Sudha Seetharam
2019 (16) SCC 739

3. St. of Har. Vs Bhajanlal (1992 Supp (1) SCC
335

4. Indian Oil Corps. Vs NEPC India Ltd. & Ors
(2006) 6 SCC 736

5. Kapil Agarwal Vs Sanjay Sharma (2021 5 SCC
524)

6. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
Maha., 2021 SCC Online SC 315

7. A.P. Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Shareholders
Welfare Asc.Vs Ramesh Kumar Bung, (2021) 9
SCC 4 152

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian, J.)

1. At the very outset, learned counsel
for the respondent no. 3 submits to decide
the instant writ petition, at the admission
stage itself, to which learned counsel for
the
petitioners
also
expresses
his
agreement, thus this writ petition is being
taken up for its final disposal at the stage of
admission.

2. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.G.A. for the State and Shri Rajendra
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 3.

3. This Criminal Misc. Writ petition,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
India, has been preferred by the petitioners,
Manoj Singh and his wife Sunita Singh, for
quashing the impugned First Information
Report, stay their arrest, and for restraining
the respondents from taking any coercive
steps against them, in consequence of
impugned First Information Report, having
been scribed on 18.04.2022, by the
respondent no. 3, Vinod Kumar Singh, at
Case Crime No. 69 of 2022, under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police
Station-Chandauli, District-Chandauli.

4. This Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
arising
out
of
aforementioned
First
Information Report. It is alleged in the said
First Information 2 that petitioner no. 1 is
real brother of the informant and after death
of their father in the year 2003 the
petitioners, by hatching a conspiracy,
executed a forged and fabricated, alleged
will, in their name and in Suit No. 1197 of
2021, Rekha Singh vs. Harihar Singh, got
mutated their names by the Court of
Tehsildar concerned, vide order dated
29.07.2021 and when it came to the
knowledge of the respondent no. 3 he
lodged the impugned First Information
Report. It is also averred in the First
Information Report that the attesting
witness Shiv Poojan Singh had died on
14.07.2021, whereas, his statement is said
to have been recorded on 29.07.2021. The
other attesting witness, Prem Prakash,
having been shown to have filed his
affidavit, affirming therein that he neither
filed his affidavit nor has put his signature
nor has any knowledge about the alleged
will. In view of the objection and affidavits
having been filed in the Court of concerned
Tehsildar, the exparte mutation order dated
29.07.2021 has been set-aside. 5. Learned
counsel for the petitioners mentioned that
the alleged will, executed by Shri Harihar
Singh, before his death, was in the
consideration for their rendered services,
care and out of love and affection and the
same is valid, genuine and true. 6. Learned
counsel for the petitioners states that the
impugned First Information Report is being
challenged chiefly on the ground that the
allegations made therein are false, frivolous
and arbitrary and also on the premise that a
civil dispute being given a criminal colour
by way of registration of First Information
Report. It is argued that the validity and
authenticity of the will is predominantly
and overwhelmingly of a civil nature which
needs 3 to be contested before an
appropriate forum having jurisdiction.

7. On behalf of the petitioners,
certified copy of the First Information
Report, presented by the respondent no. 3,
against the petitioners, under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Chandauli,
affidavits
of
deponent, Sandeep Kumar Singh, statement
of Shiv Poojan Singh, recorded before the
Court of Tehsildar, alleged will, judgment
and order of Tehsildar, concerned, in
connection with Suit No. RST/00799/2020,
Rekha Singh vs. Harihar Singh, under
Section 34 of Revenue Code, 2006,
statement of Prem Prakash Singh, recorded
in the said suit have been annexed with the
writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners
in support of his arguments, refers to the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, passed in
Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of
Karnataka, 2021 SCC Online SC 976,
wherein which in para no. 47 reads as
under;

 "
Moreover,
this
Court
at
innumerable
instances
expressed
its
disapproval for imparting criminal color to
a civil dispute, made merely to take
9 All. Manoj Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
705
advantage of a relatively quick relief
granted in a criminal case in contrast to a
civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing
but an abuse of the process of law which
must be discouraged in its entirety."

9. He further relies upon judgments of
Hon'ble Apex Court, in Case of Prof. RK
Vijayasarathy vs. Sudha Seetharam 2019
(16) SCC 739, Para 23, State of Haryana v.
Bhajanlal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, para
102, Indian Oil Corps. V. NEPC India
Ltd. & Ors (2006) 6 SCC 736, para 12,
Kapil Agarwal vs. Sanjay Sharma (2021 5
SCC 524), Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC
Online SC 315, and A.P. Mahesh Coop.
Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn.
v. Ramesh Kumar Bung, (2021) 9 SCC 4
152.

10. Next it is contended that Harihar
Singh (since deceased) had bequeathed all
his property by way of a registered will
dated
23.08.2017,
in
favour
of
the
petitioners. Further, the will has not been
challenged
by
anyone
before
any
competent authority till date. It is also
submitted that respondent no. 3, who is
admittedly real brother of petitioner no. 1,
was conformably settled as he was running
a well established business, hence his father
did not transfer any share of his property to
him, due to which the petitioners have been
falsely implicated in the present criminal
proceedings.

11.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners claims that the will is valid, true
and its genuineness, validity and its
execution cannot be set aside in instant
criminal proceedings because the nature of
dispute, with regard to will, is of civil
nature.
Instead
of
launching
civil
proceedings, the respondent no. 3 has
preferred to take recourse to criminal
proceedings just to harass them or to obtain
quick relief as compared to the relief
provided in the civil suit.

12. Lastly, the learned counsel for the
petitioners advances the argument that in
view of the facts and circumstances
narrated in the petition, the impugned First
Information Report dated 18.04.2022 be
quashed, along with further proceedings to
ensure fair and proper delivery of justice.

13. Learned A.G.A., who has received
notices on behalf of the respondent nos. 1
and 2 but he did not seek time to file his
reply
or
counter
affidavit
etc.
For
respondent no. 3 learned counsel argued at
length
and
but
has
filed
written
submissions. He denied 5 to file counter
affidavit.

14. In the written arguments, on
behalf of the respondent no. 3, it is averred
that the petitioners are husband and wife
and out of the duo, petitioner no. 1 is real
brother of the respondent no. 3, whereas,
the petitioner no. 2 is his sister in law
(Bhabhi). One brother, out of three, had
died in the year 2003 survived by his wife
namely Rekha Singh, whereas, Harihar
Singh, passed away on 11.12.2019. It is
further averred that their father lived all his
life in Chandauli. Petitioners got an
antedated
forged
Will
prepared
on
23.08.2017 with the name of the deceased
and got executed at Varanasi, introducing
marginal witnesses from Mirzapur and
thereafter got their names mutated. When
this fact came to his knowledge, the
mutation order in pursuance of his
restoration application was set aside and in
that
proceeding
marginal
witnesses
appeared but denied the execution of Will,
hence, the need of lodging the FIR arose.
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. In the instant petition, the
question that arises is as to whether the
allegations in the First Information Report
taken on face value give rise to disputes of
pure civil nature ?

16. Learned counsel for the answering
respondent no. 3 refers the said controversy
has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Jagmohan Singh vs.
Vimlesh Kumar & Ors. ................Arising
out of challenge judgment of this Court. In
the written objection relevant para of the
same has been quoted as under:

" In this case, it appears that the High
Court fell in error in taking an adverse
view only because the complainant had not
challenged the genuineness of the will by
bringing any action in a court of law and 6
further, the respondents had brought a suit
for injunction against the complainant.

There can be no doubt that in the civil
suit, the burden would be on the plaintiff
relying on a will to establish the
genuineness of the will on the basis of
which relief/ permanent injunction is
claimed. However, that does not prevent
the accused, who can be defendants in such
a civil suit from initiating criminal
proceedings on the contention that the will
is forged/ fabricated."

Thus the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to set aside the order passed by this
Court.

17.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 3 has also cited the case of
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State
of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC online SC 315.
The relevant part of the said judgment is as
follows:
"While
examining
an
FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint."

18. Learned counsel for the answering
respondent concludes his submissions by
stating that since the allegations in the First
Information Report disclose prima facie
commission
of
cognizable
offences,
therefore, present writ petition is not
sustainable
in
law
and
consequently
deserves to be dismissed.

19. We have heard the rival
submission of learned for the parties and
also perused the record.

20. In Prof. R.K. Vijayasarthy vs.
Sudha Seetharam, 2019 (16) SCC 739 the
appellants has instituted a civil suit for the
recovery of Rs. 20 Lakhs from the
respondents, thereafter the first respondent
filed complaint against her ex son in law
(son of 7 appellant). The first respondent
filed the complaint against the appellants
six years after the date of the alleged
transaction and nearly three years after the
filing of the suit, interim injunction was
granted by the Court, without quashing the
criminal proceedings till civil suit was
decided. In the said case impugned
judgement and order of High Court was set
aside and the criminal complaint case was
quashed.

21. In the instant petition no civil suit
has been instituted.

22. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335), in the
political rivalry between the respondent no.
1 Bhajan Lal and Devi Lal, both belonged
to two rival political parties and on account
of political rivalry resulted initiation of
number of criminal cases and counter
cases. On the presentation of complaint, by
9 All. Manoj Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
707
the respondent no. 2, the then Station
House Officer, registered a case on the
basis of the allegations in the Complaint
under Sections 161 and 165 I.P.C. and
Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act No. 21 of 1987. Against the said First
Information Report, respondent no. 1 filed
a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, seeking
issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing
the First Information Report and also a writ
of prohibition restrain the authorities from
further proceedings with the investigation.
High Court concluded that the allegations
did not constitute cognizable offence hence
granted the relief as prayed for.

23. Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
order of the High Court quashing the First
Information Report in question viewed
from any angle cannot be sustained both on
the
question
of
law
and
facts.
Consequently, that part of the judgment of
High
Court
quashing
8
the
First
Information Report was set aside.

24. Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorized
the
cases,
wherein,
the
extraordinary powers under Article 226 can
be exercised. The power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court
either to prevent abuse of process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. Out of seven categories of cases,
second category is to the fact that where the
allegations in the First Information Report
and other material do not disclose the
cognizable
offence
justifying
the
investigation by a police officer. The First
Information Report could be quashed to
secure the ends of justice.

25. In Indian Oil Corps vs. NEPC
India Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 6 Scc 736, the
petition on behalf of the appellant, Indian
Oil Corporation was preferred under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
criminal complaint. In that petition disputes
were pertaining to breach of contract
besides criminal complaint. The respondent
Indian Oil Corporation had already sought
injunction reliefs and money degrees.

26. The High Court by a common
judgment had allowed both the petitions
and quashed two complaints. The said
order of the High Court was challenged in
the above stated citations before the
Hon'ble Apex Court.

27. Present petition preferred along
with the aforesaid judgments. Because the
petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court was
preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
whereas, the present petition, in this Court,
has been preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. 9

28. Hon'ble Supreme Court also held
that power to quashment of process and
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/ under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is for the
purpose that Criminal proceeding ought not
to be permitted to be used as weapon of
harassment. Hence, the Court is satisfied
that Criminal Proceedings amounting to an
abuse of process of law or that it amounts
to bring pressure upon the accused in
exercise
of
inherent
powers,
such
proceedings can be quashed.

29. In A.P. Mahesh Coop. Urban
Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. v.
Ramesh Kumar Bung (2021) 9 SCC 152,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that High
Court is permitted to pass an interim order
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the nature
impugned herein, in only exception of
cases with caution and circumspection,
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
giving atleast brief reasons and further held
that the grant of such relief by High Court
was granted in proper amendment with
detail reasons therein. In the matter before
the Hon'ble Apex Court, there was a
dispute of civil which was sought to be
converted into criminal case. The Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
stayed
the
further
proceeding including the arrest. It was
observed that more than the allegations in
dispute
are
different
turfs,
such
as
sometime persons, who raise such dispute
manage to camouflage their real motive.

30. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021, SCC
online SC 315, the Apex Court held that by
giving brief reasons, the High Court would
be justified in even staying the further
investigation, by way of an interim order. It
is also laid down that misuse of criminal
proceedings is not unknown and the
criminal law cannot be set into motion as a
matter of 10 course and therefore to take
away the inherent powers of the High Court
would not be in the larger public interest
also.

31. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kapil
Agrawal and others vs. Sanjay Sharma
(221) 5 SCC 524 and Indian Oil
Corporation vs M/S Nepc India Ltd., &
Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, laid
down that inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article
226 of the Constitution is designed to
achieve solitary purpose that criminal
proceedings ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into weapon of harassment. It
was also opined when the Court is satisfied
that criminal proceedings amount to an
abuse of process of law or that it amounts
to bringing pressure upon accused, in
exercise
of
inherent
powers,
such
proceedings can be quashed.

32. In the given facts, it is pleaded by
the petitioner the informant (Vinod Kumar
Singh) alleged that his brother Manoj Singh
accused/petitioner
had
fraudulently
obtained a will from their father Harihar
Singh on the basis of forged documents. It
is further alleged in the FIR that the
petitioner was driven by greed to inherit the
property, consequently, mischievously got
the entire property transferred in the name
of his wife Sunita Singh and their Bhabhi
Rekha Singh wife of their deceased brother.
It is further alleged that pursuant to the
registered sale-deed the court of Tehsildar
Sadar Chandauli had directed mutation of
the name of the petitioner and the other
beneficiary under the will. It appears that
on
an
application
moved
by
the
complainant the order mutating the name of
the petitioner has been withdrawn and the
matter is pending. It is under the aforenoted facts the present FIR came to be
lodged through an application filed under
Section 11 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging fraud
and misrepresentation in obtaining the will,
as well as, the mutation order.

33. On specific query, learned counsel
for the respondent/complainant submits
that the will bequeathing the property upon
the petitioner is a duly registered document.
The validity of the will is yet to be
challenged before the competent court. The
mutation
proceedings
are
summary
proceedings and does not create any title
upon any person, rather, acknowledges the
possession of the property and for the
purposes of revenue collection.

34. In the circumstances learned
counsel for the petitioner is justified in
submitting that unless the will is challenged
before the competent court, the criminal
proceedings has been initiated maliciously
to coerce the petitioner to enter into a
9 All. Subhash Chandra Chaturvedi Vs. IVth Addl. Session Judge/Spl. Judge/E.C. Act Lko &
 Ors.
709
compromise out side the court. It is a case
of pure civil nature given criminal colour
with ulterior motive.

35. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the FIR dated 18
April 2022 lodged by the third respondent
registered as Case Crime No. 69 of 2022
under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC,
P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli is
hereby
quashed with
liberty
to
the
aggrieved party to take recourse before the
competent court with regard to the validity
of the will.

36. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.

37. No order as to cost.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 709
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 34234 of 2019

Subhash Chandra Chaturvedi ...Petitioner
Versus
IVth Addl. Session Judge/Spl. Judge/E.C.
Act Lko & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ram Kumar Srivastava, Mohd. Aslam Khan,
Rajeev Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Gaurav Tripathi, Manoj Kumar, Sridhar Awasthi

Civil Law - The Constitution of India,
1952- Article 227- It is well settled that
the power under Article 227 is one of
judicial superintendence which cannot be
used
to
upset
conclusions
of
facts,
however erroneous those may be, unless
such conclusions are so perverse or so
unreasonable that no Court could have
ever
reached
them-
There
is
no
justification
for
the
High
Court
to
substitute its view for the opinion of the
Authorities /Courts below as the same is
not permissible in proceedings under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution. This
Court cannot interfere with the findings of
fact recorded by Courts below unless
there is no evidence to support the
findings
or
the
findings
are
totally
perverse. As long as they are based upon
some material which is relevant for the
purpose, no interference is called for. Even
on the ground that there is yet another
view which can reasonably and possibly
be taken, the High Court cannot interfere-
This Court having considered the facts as
pleaded by the petitioner and the private
respondents in this petition and the facts
and Law as appreciated by the learned
Trial Court and the Appellate Court, does
not filed any perversity in the appreciation
of facts by the two learned Court below or
any infirmity in the law as appreciated in
the orders impugned.

Where concurrent findings of facts have been
recorded by the courts below, then the same
cannot be interfered by the High Court under its
supervisory jurisdiction unless the said findings
of fact are either based on no evidence or are
absolutely perverse. (Para 41, 73, 75)

Petition rejected. (E-3)

Case
law/
Judgements
relied
upon/
discussed:-

1. Lawyers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
Agra Vs Shri Krishna Grah Nirman Samiti Limited
& ors.2002 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases 415

2. Raja Ram Gupta Vs Firm Jaiswal Iron and
Steel Works & ors., 1980 AWC 110

3. Smt. Vinod Rani Lamba & anr. Vs Baburam
Yadav ,2017 (135) RD 427

4. Smt. Sudesh & ors. Vs A.D.J. & ors. 2006 (1)
ARC 387