# Narendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 396
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-31
- **Bench:** Ajai Lamba, Ravindra Nath Mishra-Ii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44263
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitutional law-Writ petition - Certiorari - Quashing First Information Report - Sections 419, 420,
467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. - Survey Lekhpal - Tampering in revenue record - Manipulation - Forging -
Correction of record - Section 33 and Section 39 Revenue Act - Civil/revenue/criminal proceedings -
Cognizable offence - Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed - Petition dismissed.

This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing First Information Report bearing
Case Crime No. 0264 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C., Police Station Safipur, District
Unnao.(Para 1)

Allegation against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R., in brief, is that the petitioner is serving as Survey
Lekhpal, prepared record through manipulation, tampering and forging, which does not depict the actual fact.
(Para 2)

In the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue of wrong entries in the revenue record was
brought before this Court. This Court issued certain directions. In compliance of the directions, the private
respondents filed application under Section 33 read with section 39 of the Revenue Act for correction of
record. The adjudicating authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Safipur, District Unnao vide order dated
30.7.2015 found tampering in the record and consequently impugned criminal proceedings have been
initiated.(Para 3)

Held: (8-10,12)
1.We have taken note of fact that criminal proceedings have been initiated by Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Safipur, District Unnao, who in fact found tampering in the record. A person, particularly a public
servant/public authority is required to report commission of cognizable offence in case an incident/transaction
indicates commission of such an offence.

2.The principle laid down in the above extracted portion of judgement rendered in Smapurna Nand Tiwari's
case (supra) shall apply to the case of the petitioner also. Criminal proceedings, in peculiar facts and
8 All. Narendra Kumar Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
397
circumstances of the case, cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction only because revision petition is pending in
regard to the issue involved. The adjudicating authority viz. the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Safipur, District
Unnao has already recorded a finding with reasons that revenue record has been interpolated. In these
circumstances, initiation of criminal proceedings is surely warranted.

3.We are also of the considered opinion that this Court while issuing direction on the petition of the private
respondents specifically provided that ".......In case any tampering has been done in the Revenue record, then
it shall be incumbent to the competent authority to lodge F.I.R......". Under the circumstances, the initiation of
criminal proceedings is not illegal, as such an eventuality was envisaged by this Court while dealing with the
claim of the relevant parties.The petition is dismissed.

Case Law discussed:
1.Smapurna Nand Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others - para 7
2.Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another, (2005) 4 SCC 370 - paras 7, 11, 12
3.M.S. Sheriff Vs. State of Madras and others, AIR 1954 SC 397 - para 11

## Text

396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 396
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI LAMBA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA NATH MISHRA-II, J.

Misc. Bench No.- 20500 Of 2016

Narendra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vijay Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

Constitutional law-Writ petition - Certiorari - Quashing First Information Report - Sections 419, 420,
467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. - Survey Lekhpal - Tampering in revenue record - Manipulation - Forging -
Correction of record - Section 33 and Section 39 Revenue Act - Civil/revenue/criminal proceedings -
Cognizable offence - Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed - Petition dismissed.

This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing First Information Report bearing
Case Crime No. 0264 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C., Police Station Safipur, District
Unnao.(Para 1)

Allegation against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R., in brief, is that the petitioner is serving as Survey
Lekhpal, prepared record through manipulation, tampering and forging, which does not depict the actual fact.
(Para 2)

In the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue of wrong entries in the revenue record was
brought before this Court. This Court issued certain directions. In compliance of the directions, the private
respondents filed application under Section 33 read with section 39 of the Revenue Act for correction of
record. The adjudicating authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Safipur, District Unnao vide order dated
30.7.2015 found tampering in the record and consequently impugned criminal proceedings have been
initiated.(Para 3)

Held: (8-10,12)
1.We have taken note of fact that criminal proceedings have been initiated by Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Safipur, District Unnao, who in fact found tampering in the record. A person, particularly a public
servant/public authority is required to report commission of cognizable offence in case an incident/transaction
indicates commission of such an offence.

2.The principle laid down in the above extracted portion of judgement rendered in Smapurna Nand Tiwari's
case (supra) shall apply to the case of the petitioner also. Criminal proceedings, in peculiar facts and
8 All. Narendra Kumar Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
397
circumstances of the case, cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction only because revision petition is pending in
regard to the issue involved. The adjudicating authority viz. the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Safipur, District
Unnao has already recorded a finding with reasons that revenue record has been interpolated. In these
circumstances, initiation of criminal proceedings is surely warranted.

3.We are also of the considered opinion that this Court while issuing direction on the petition of the private
respondents specifically provided that ".......In case any tampering has been done in the Revenue record, then
it shall be incumbent to the competent authority to lodge F.I.R......". Under the circumstances, the initiation of
criminal proceedings is not illegal, as such an eventuality was envisaged by this Court while dealing with the
claim of the relevant parties.The petition is dismissed.

Case Law discussed:
1.Smapurna Nand Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others - para 7
2.Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another, (2005) 4 SCC 370 - paras 7, 11, 12
3.M.S. Sheriff Vs. State of Madras and others, AIR 1954 SC 397 - para 11

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Lamba, J.
&
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, J.)

1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing First
Information Report bearing Case Crime No. 0264 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 &
471 I.P.C., Police Station Safipur, District Unnao.

2. Allegation against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R., in brief, is that the petitioner is
serving as Survey Lekhpal, prepared record through manipulation, tampering and forging, which
does not depict the actual fact.

3. In the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue of wrong entries in the
revenue record was brought before this Court. This Court issued certain directions. In compliance
of the directions, the private respondents filed application under Section 33 read with section 39 of
the Revenue Act for correction of record. The adjudicating authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Safipur, District Unnao vide order dated 30.7.2015 found tampering in the record and consequently
impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated.

4. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the issue of correction in revenue
record has not attained finality and is pending adjudication before the revisional court. In such
circumstances, criminal proceedings could not have been initiated against the petitioner. Impugned
F.I.R. is liable to be quashed because criminal proceedings and proceedings on the revenue side
cannot co-exist.

5. We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in context of
facts and circumstances of the case. This Court issued directions in the following terms:
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"................. Revenue record, on the ground of alleged tampering in favour of
private respondent. Option is open to the petitioner under Section 33 read with Section 39 of
Revenue Act for correction of record. In case application is moved, the appropriate authority has
ample power to find out whether any tampering has been done. In case any tampering has been
done in the Revenue record, then it shall be incumbent to the competent authority to lodge F.I.R.
and proceed against the person who are responsible for tampering in the Revenue record and
correct and record accordingly. In case such application is moved, the competent authority shall
proceed accordingly expeditiously. Since we have not entered into the merit of the controversy,
issuance of notice to private respondent is dispensed with.

Subject to above, the writ petition is finally disposed of. "

6. It is evident that the issue of wrong entries in the Revenue Record has been adjudicated
by the authorities on the revenue side. Vide order dated 30.7.2015, a specific finding has been
recorded that the record has been manipulated/tampered with/forged and new persons have been
entered as lessee in the record.

7.
Civil/revenue/criminal
proceedings
can
continue
in
regard
to
common
incident/transaction, if the facts and circumstances so warrant. This aspect has been considered by
this Court, while relying on a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgement dated
6.10.2015 rendered in Writ Petition No. 9279 (MB) of 2015: Smapurna Nand Tiwari Vs. State of
U.P. and others. Paras 11 to 15 of the said judgement read as under:

"11. The issue whether simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings can continue
in regard to a common incident/ transaction, has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in (2005) 4 SCC 370 : Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and
another (5 JJ), Paragraph 32 of the said judgement reads as under :-

"32.Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid
conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the
standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are
decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden
lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither
any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding
may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the
basis of the evidence adduced therein. While examining a similar contention in an appeal against
an order directing filing of a complaint under Section 476 of the old Code, the following
observations made by a Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff vs. The State of Madras and others
give a complete answer to the problem posed [AIR 1954 SC 397] (AIR p. 399, paras 15-16) :

"(15) As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion
that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the
High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider
8 All. Narendra Kumar Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
399
that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is a relevant
consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the
decision of one Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes,
such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of
embarrassment.

(16) Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for
years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned
has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be
swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public
mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and
impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have
grown too dim to trust.

This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any
particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case
or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order
to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under Section 476. But in this case we are of the view
that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished."

(Emphasis supplied by us)

12. From the above extracted portion of the judgement rendered in Iqbal Singh
Marwah's case(supra), it becomes evident that the standard of proof required in civil proceedings
and criminal proceedings is entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance
of evidence while in a criminal case, the entire burden of proving that offence has been committed
lies on the prosecution, and proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to be shown to the court.
Because both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced in each of the
cases, findings recorded in one proceeding cannot be treated as final or binding on the other.

13. It has further been elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that
criminal matter should be given precedence. Civil litigation often drags on for long time whereas it
is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait. It has been suggested that in case criminal
prosecution is stayed, evidence is likely to be lost or destroyed. Public interest demands that the
criminal justice should be swift and sure ; that the guilty should be punished while the events are
still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with
fair and impartial trial. It has further been said that this however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special
circumstances might require a different course of action. In given circumstances, it might be
expedient to stay a particular proceeding.

14. Applying the above noted principle of law to the facts of this case, we find that
at the time of consideration of facts and circumstances of the matter being adjudicated, the Lokpal
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

found interpolation of record and commission of certain cognizable offence. Under the
circumstances, it has been observed by the Lokpal that criminal proceedings be initiated.

15. In the considered opinion of this court, in case a matter is being taken up by a
public authority/ public servant, and in the course of proceedings, facts and circumstances prima
facie indicate commission of cognizable offence, ordinarily, it is desirable for such authority to
issue appropriate directions to initiate criminal proceedings. "

8. We have taken note of fact that criminal proceedings have been initiated by Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Safipur, District Unnao, who in fact found tampering in the record. A
person, particularly a public servant/public authority is required to report commission of cognizable
offence in case an incident/transaction indicates commission of such an offence.

9. The principle laid down in the above extracted portion of judgement rendered in
Smapurna Nand Tiwari's case (supra) shall apply to the case of the petitioner also. Criminal
proceedings, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction
only because revision petition is pending in regard to the issue involved. The adjudicating authority
viz. the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Safipur, District Unnao has already recorded a finding with
reasons that revenue record has been interpolated. In these circumstances, initiation of criminal
proceedings is surely warranted.

10. We are also of the considered opinion that this Court while issuing direction on the
petition of the private respondents specifically provided that ".......In case any tampering has been
done in the Revenue record, then it shall be incumbent to the competent authority to lodge
F.I.R......". Under the circumstances, the initiation of criminal proceedings is not illegal, as such an
eventuality was envisaged by this Court while dealing with the claim of the relevant parties.

11. Consequently, we find no ground to interfere in extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

12. The petition is dismissed.
-----------
8 All. Jagdish Narayan Shukla Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
401
(2016) 8 ILRA 401
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DILIP B. BHOSALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Misc. Bench No.- 20528 Of 2016

Jagdish Narayan Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
J.N. Shukla (In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C, A.S.G., Rishad Murtaza

Constitutional law -Public interest litigation - Writ petition - Mandamus - Transfer of Chief Secretary -
Allegations based on newspaper reports - CBI enquiry - Central Vigilance Commission - Serious allegations
- Non-joinder of necessary party - Habitual litigant - Frivolous petitions - Baseless and reckless allegations
- Abuse of process - Petition dismissed with costs

This petition, in the nature of public interest, filed by an Editor of Nishpaksh Pratidin Daily Newspaper, seeks
the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to post Mr. Singhal to some other post and to appoint an able
person with reputation and integrity for the post of Chief Secretary of the State.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents No.3, 4 and 5 to take into
consideration the companies as mentioned as aforesaid which are running by the relatives of the present
Chief Secretary and to investigate in detail and if found to be bogus and inoperative, to proceed prosecution
against them as per law." (Para 2)

From bare perusal of the prayers, it is clear that the petitioner seeks reliefs against Mr. Singhal, Chief
Secretary of the State Government, making serious allegations against him, without adding him as a partyrespondent in the writ petition.
(Para
3)

Held: (13-15)
1.At this stage, we would also like to reproduce the following observations made by this Court in Misc. Bench
No. 8216 of 2016, Hindu Personal Law Board, through Ashok Pande vs. Union of India, through Cabinet
Secretary, Government of India & Ors., decided on 19.4.2016:
"It has become necessary for the Court to issue this direction in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that valuable time of the Court is not wasted in thoroughly frivolous
cases which have no bearing on matters of public interest. Habitual litigants are increasingly flooding the
Courts with frivolous petitions. PILs are filed to cover almost every topic under the sun. Many of them are