# Matsya Jeevi Sahkari Samiti Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 645 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-07-08 - **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 13838 of 2021 - **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Ravi Nath Tilhari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/matsya-jeevi-sahkari-samiti-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47245 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote A. Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 493 - Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage - Ingredients - there must be averment that the accused deceitfully made to believe the victim woman that they have been lawfully married - accused must induce a woman, who is not lawfully married to him, to believe that he is married to her and as a result of the aforesaid representation, the woman should believe that she was lawfully married to him and there should be cohabitation or sexual intercourse as a result of the deception - where the woman fully knew that no ceremony of marriage took place between then, there is no question of believing otherwise - mere promise to marry & having sexual relationship with the victim does not prove offence u/s 493 I.P.C. (Para 11,12,13) B. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 198 - Prosecution for offences against marriage. - Scope - No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (which contains S. 493 I. P. C.) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence - F.I.R. cannot be registered for the offence u/s 493 I.P.C. - at the most, if complainant is aggrieved, she ought to have filed a complaint under Section 198 Cr.P.C. before the competent authority (Para 15) Allowed. (E-4) List of Cases cited: ## Text 7 All. Matsya Jeevi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 645 of interim relief by the Appellate Authority, and the cancellation order passed by the S.D.M. remains in operation, no perpetual right would be created in such subsequent allottee. On the Appeal of the petitioner being eventually allowed, he shall be entitled to get restoration of his fair price shop. He shall not suffer any irreparable loss and his Appeal would not be rendered infructuous as was the case being considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Chand Yadav Vs. Raja Buland Shahar Company Limited (Supra). (6) The writ petition is devoid of merits, it is dismissed. ---------- (2021)07ILR A645 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 08.07.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. Misc. Bench No. 13838 of 2021 Matsya Jeevi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, Gufran Siddiqui Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 - Lease of Tanks, Rule 57 - Appeal, Rule 59 - appeal prescribed is only against the grant of lease - "person aggrieved thereby" in Rule 59 refers to a person aggrieved by grant of lease - Cancellation of fishery lease under Rule 57 (14) - No appeal lies against an order of cancellation of lease (Para 5) Dismissed. (E-4) (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. & Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manjeev Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging an order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sandila, District Hardoi dated 25.01.2021, by which the lease granted to the petitioner for exercising fishery rights over a pond on Gata No. 614ka, 611Ka and 619Gha on 14.06.2016 for five years has been cancelled on the ground inter alia that the petitioner has sublet the pond to villagers. Secondly, it had been given possession of the pond earlier, thirdly the agreement was not got executed by the petitioner, fourthly, the lease consideration had not been deposited by the petitioner for the past three years. 3. The petitioner's counsel says that he was never given possession of the pond, whereas the impugned order as also the report at page 66 says that it was given, therefore, this is a disputed question of fact. 4. Considering the fact that it is a dispute arising out of a contract between the petitioner and opposite parties and it is not possible for the writ court under Article 646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 226 of the Constitution of India to decide disputed questions of fact. 5. No appeal lies against an order of cancellation of such lease under Rule 59 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and the appeal prescribed therein is only against the grant of such lease and it is to be filed within 30 days from the date of approval of such lease by the Sub Divisional Officer. Any order passed in appeal under Rule 59 is subject to the revisional powers under Section 210. There is no mention of any appeal against an order of cancellation of lease under Rule 57 (14) of the Rules, 2016. The use of the words "person aggrieved thereby" in Rule 59 refers to a person aggrieved by grant of lease and an appeal lies against such grant of lease, which is also evident from the fact that the period of limitation of 30 days is prescribed from the date of approval of such lease by the Sub Divisional Officer, which is not relevant in the case of cancellation of lease. 6. As an appeal does not lie against such cancellation as held here-in-above, we dismiss this petition for the reasons aforesaid, but with liberty to the petitioner to avail other remedies prescribed in law. ---------- (2021)07ILR A646 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 07.07.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J. Misc. Bench No. 13935 of 2021 Brij Mohan Kushwaha ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Akash Dikshit Counsel for the Respondents: G.A. A. Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 493 - Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage - Ingredients - there must be averment that the accused deceitfully made to believe the victim woman that they have been lawfully married - accused must induce a woman, who is not lawfully married to him, to believe that he is married to her and as a result of the aforesaid representation, the woman should believe that she was lawfully married to him and there should be cohabitation or sexual intercourse as a result of the deception - where the woman fully knew that no ceremony of marriage took place between then, there is no question of believing otherwise - mere promise to marry & having sexual relationship with the victim does not prove offence u/s 493 I.P.C. (Para 11,12,13) B. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 198 - Prosecution for offences against marriage. - Scope - No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code (which contains S. 493 I. P. C.) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence - F.I.R. cannot be registered for the offence u/s 493 I.P.C. - at the most, if complainant is aggrieved, she ought to have filed a complaint under Section 198 Cr.P.C. before the competent authority (Para 15) Allowed. (E-4) List of Cases cited: 1. Moideenkutty Haji & ors. Vs Kunhihoya & ors. AIR 1987 Kerala 184 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)