# Neelu Alias Nilesh Kumar Pandey v. Smt. Chabbi Devi & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 378 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2015-08-07 - **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neelu-alias-nilesh-kumar-pandey-v-smt-chabbi-devi-ors-43447 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote Shri B.B. PAUL Held- Para 1-2: Introduction; Petitioner challenges the rejection of an application to implead Rupesh Kumar Pandey. Para 3: Background; Claimants (respondents 1 & 2) filed for compensation alleging the petitioner's motorcycle (UP66E-4760) killed Prabhu Nath. Para 4: Petitioner's defense; Admits ownership of the bike but denies the accident, claiming the actual vehicle involved belonged to Rupesh Kumar Pandey. Para 5: Prior litigation; A previous attempt to implead Rupesh was rejected in 2012 based on police records (FIR/Charge sheet) naming the petitioner. That order became final. Para 6: New development; Rupesh appeared as a witness for the petitioner, claiming his bike caused the accident. Petitioner filed a fresh impleadment application (66 Ga), which claimants opposed as a delay tactic. Para 7: Tribunal's ruling; The burden of proof lies on the claimants. If they fail to prove the petitioner's involvement, the claim fails. Rupesh is not a "necessary party." Para 8: Petitioner's argument; Counsel argues the Tribunal should ensure justice by impleading the person allegedly responsible, citing the limits of dominus litis. Para 9: Analysis of Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi; Discusses judicial discretion in adding parties and the "direct interest" test. Para 10: Other precedents; Discusses avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings and the rights of assignees in litigation. Para 11: Court's finding; Since claimants seek no relief against Rupesh and deny his involvement, he is not a "necessary party" for adjudicating the dispute. Para 12: Legal consequence; Adding third-party owners based on a defendant's plea would improperly enlarge the scope of the Motor Vehicles Act. Para 13: Criminal context; Petitioner previously failed to quash a criminal charge sheet naming him as the offender in this same accident. Para 14: Credibility; The Court suspects collusion between the petitioner and Rupesh, noting that Rupesh's "confession" as a witness is highly suspicious. Para 15: Conclusion; The Tribunal's order is upheld; the petition is dismissed under Article 227 with a note not to prejudice the final merits of the claim. Petition Dismissed. Case laws Cited:- 380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1.Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum - AIR 1958 SC 886 2.Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur - 1999 ACJ (1) 784 (SC) 3.Amit Kumar Shaw and Farida Khatoon - 2005 (59) ALR 584 4.Ravindra Giri Goswami and another vs. Daraganj Ram Leela Committee - 2011 (4) ADJ 857 ## Text 378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES society could not long endure under serious threats. If the courts did not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offene and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc." 33. While we glance over the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the sentence awarded by the trial court which is life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, we uphold that the punishment imposed by the trial court is not disproportionate to the offence proved, which cannot be categorized and confined to less than the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence in question. Moral depravity of a kind like the present one if perpetrated on innocent child of about five years and she is brutally raped then certainly the conscious of the entire society will be shaken and crisis of faith will arise. Any leniency will have serious repercussion on the well being of the society itself. Societal interest demand that appropriate stern sentence should be imposed in cases involving brutality and moral depravity. 34. In our considered opinion, the maximized sentence of life imprisonment is proportionately justified looking to the manner and nature of the offence committed in this case and while imposing fine of Rs.10,000/- already lenient view was taken by the trial court, therefore, prayer for reducing the sentence prescribed from the maximized to the period already undergone in jail is refused. The judgment and order of conviction dated 06.06.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Bulandshahr, in Session Trial No.302 of 2005 (State of U.P. Vs. Raj Kumar), under Sections 376 (2) (f) IPC, Police Station Anoopshahar, arising out of Case No.332 of 2004, District Bulandshahr is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. 35. Appellant is in jail. He will serve out remaining part of the sentence. 36. Let this order be certified to the court concerned to ensure the compliance of the order and information. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. Matters Under Article 227 No.- 3109 Of 2015 Neelu Alias Nilesh Kumar Pandey ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Chabbi Devi & Ors. ...Respondents 4 All. Neelu Alias Nilesh Kumar Pandey Vs Smt. Chabbi Devi & Ors. 379 Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri B.B. PAUL Held- Para 1-2: Introduction; Petitioner challenges the rejection of an application to implead Rupesh Kumar Pandey. Para 3: Background; Claimants (respondents 1 & 2) filed for compensation alleging the petitioner's motorcycle (UP66E-4760) killed Prabhu Nath. Para 4: Petitioner's defense; Admits ownership of the bike but denies the accident, claiming the actual vehicle involved belonged to Rupesh Kumar Pandey. Para 5: Prior litigation; A previous attempt to implead Rupesh was rejected in 2012 based on police records (FIR/Charge sheet) naming the petitioner. That order became final. Para 6: New development; Rupesh appeared as a witness for the petitioner, claiming his bike caused the accident. Petitioner filed a fresh impleadment application (66 Ga), which claimants opposed as a delay tactic. Para 7: Tribunal's ruling; The burden of proof lies on the claimants. If they fail to prove the petitioner's involvement, the claim fails. Rupesh is not a "necessary party." Para 8: Petitioner's argument; Counsel argues the Tribunal should ensure justice by impleading the person allegedly responsible, citing the limits of dominus litis. Para 9: Analysis of Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi; Discusses judicial discretion in adding parties and the "direct interest" test. Para 10: Other precedents; Discusses avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings and the rights of assignees in litigation. Para 11: Court's finding; Since claimants seek no relief against Rupesh and deny his involvement, he is not a "necessary party" for adjudicating the dispute. Para 12: Legal consequence; Adding third-party owners based on a defendant's plea would improperly enlarge the scope of the Motor Vehicles Act. Para 13: Criminal context; Petitioner previously failed to quash a criminal charge sheet naming him as the offender in this same accident. Para 14: Credibility; The Court suspects collusion between the petitioner and Rupesh, noting that Rupesh's "confession" as a witness is highly suspicious. Para 15: Conclusion; The Tribunal's order is upheld; the petition is dismissed under Article 227 with a note not to prejudice the final merits of the claim. Petition Dismissed. Case laws Cited:- 380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1.Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum - AIR 1958 SC 886 2.Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur - 1999 ACJ (1) 784 (SC) 3.Amit Kumar Shaw and Farida Khatoon - 2005 (59) ALR 584 4.Ravindra Giri Goswami and another vs. Daraganj Ram Leela Committee - 2011 (4) ADJ 857 (Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 10.4.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi at Gyanpur, whereby, the application paper No.66 Ga filed by the petitioner for impleading one Rupesh Kumar Pandey as a party respondent to the claim petition has been rejected. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which was registered as Motor Accident Claim no. 74 of 2010. Therein, they claimed compensation on account of death of Prabhu Nath, who was the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent. In the claim petition, it is alleged that Prabhu Nath was hit by a motor cycle bearing registration no.UP66E-4760 belonging to the petitioner, on 10.5.2010, as a result whereof, he died. 4. The claim petition was contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement in which it is accepted that the petitioner owns a motor cycle bearing registration no. UP66E 4760. However, it is alleged that the motor cycle belonging to the petitioner had not met with any accident. It is further alleged that infact, the accident took place with another vehicle bearing registration no. UP70AW- 8970 belonging to one Rupesh Kumar Pandey. 5. The petitioner filed an application for deciding issue no.2 as to whether Rupesh Kumar Pandey is a necessary party to the claim petition, and for directing the claimants to implead him as a party respondent to the claim petition. It was rejected by an order dated 13.2.2012. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the documentary evidence on record by way of first information report, charge sheet, panchayatnama, and post mortem report all clearly reveals that it is the petitioner who was involved in the accident and not the vehicle belonging to Rupesh Kumar Pandey and consequently rejected the application with the finding that he is not a necessary party to the claim petition. It is not in dispute between the parties that the order dated 13.2.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, has attained finality. 6. After the trial commenced, Rupesh Kumar Pandey was brought into witness box as one of the witnesses of the petitioner. In his statement, he admitted the case of the petitioner and stated that the accident took place with the motor cycle bearing registration no. UP70AW-8970 belonging to him. He further alleged that in the said accident, the deceased only received certain minor injuries and he was paid certain sum as compensation for the same. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application paper no. 66 Ga seeking impleadment of Rupesh Kumar Pandey as a party 4 All. Neelu Alias Nilesh Kumar Pandey Vs Smt. Chabbi Devi & Ors. 381 respondent to the claim petition. The application was opposed by the claimants. They stated that the application in question has been filed with the sole intention of delaying the disposal of the claim petition. It was alleged that the petitioner and Rupesh Kumar Pandey are in collusion with each other. The application is wholly frivolous. 7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by impugned order dated 10.4.2015 rejected the application for impleadment. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the burden to prove that the accident occurred with the motor cycle belonging to the petitioner, is on the claimant respondents. In case the claimant-respondents fail to discharge their burden, the consequences will follow. However, Rupesh Kumar Pandey was not found to be the necessary party to the claim petition. Consequently, the application has been rejected. 8. Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the impleadment application. He submitted that the doctrine of dominus litis cannot be stretched too far. It is urged that when it has been brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the accident had taken place with the motor cycle belonging to Rupesh Kumar Pandey, the Tribunal itself should have directed for his impleadment, so that justice is done between the parties. In this regard, he has placed reliance on various decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court. 9. The first decision cited by Sri B.B. Paul in the case of Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum AIR 1958 SC 886 holds that the question of addition of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of a judicial discretion, which has to be exercised in view of the fact and circumstances of a particular case. It has been held that in a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest. However, where the subject matter of litigation is declaration, as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party, it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy. It was a case where the appellant in her plaint asked for a declaration that she was a legally wedded wife of respondent no.3 and was entitled to receive maintenance from him. Respondent no.3, had in his written statement, unequivocally admitted the relationship between the parties. However, respondent no.1 claiming himself to be the legally wedded wife of respondent no.3, applied for impleadment. The trial court allowed the application for impleadment and the order was affirmed in revision by the High Court. In that context, it is held that where the subject matter of litigation is a declaration or a legal character, the court should not apply the test of there being a direct interest and a person claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the defendant, could be impleaded. 10. Reliance has also been placed on the judgement in case of Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur 1999 ACJ (1) 784, wherein the Supreme Court held that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the court can direct impleadment of a person. In Amit Kumar Shaw and Farida Khatoon 2005 (59) ALR 584, it was held that the assignee of an interest of a party during the pendency of appeal, can be permitted to be impleaded, as his right would be affected. In 382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES yet another decision in case of Ravindra Giri Goswami and another vs. Daraganj Ram Leela Committee 2011 (4) ADJ 857, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held by this Court that if a person does not have a direct interest in the matter and is not found to be necessary or proper party, the court has no jurisdiction to direct for his impleadment. 11. The question for consideration before this Court is whether impleadment of Rupesh Kumar Pandey is necessary for determination of the real matter in dispute between the parties. Admittedly, in the claim petition, the specific case of the claimant was that the accident took place with the motor cycle bearing registration no. UP66 E- 4760 belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner in his written statement has denied the said fact. He has further alleged that the accident took place with another motor cycle bearing registration no. UP70AW-8970 belonging to Rupesh Kumar Pandey. Rupesh Kumar Pandey, in his statement has admitted the said fact. Admittedly, the relief claimed in the claim petition by the claimants is against the petitioner to whom they claim to be the owner of the offending vehicle. Even after the specific plea by the petitioner in his written statement that the accident had occurred with another vehicle, the claimants have not amended their pleading nor have sought any relief against Rupesh Kumar Pandey. They rather deny the assertion made by the petitioner that the accident had taken place with the vehicle belonging to Rupesh Kumar Pandey. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that Rupesh Kumar Pandey was not a necessary party to the claim petition. 12. The matter can be examined from another angle. In case, on the basis of a plea by the owner of the offending vehicle that the accident had infact taken place with some other vehicle, the owner of such vehicle is permitted to be impleaded, it would result in consequences not contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Such plea would result in enlarging the scope of dispute before the Tribunal in as much as the Tribunal would then be called upon to answer a question which is alien to the claim petition. The tribunal is justified in holding that the presence of Rupesh Kumar Pandey is not necessary for determining the real matter in dispute. 13. In the case at hand, the Court cannot loose sight of the fact that there had been a concerted effort on part of the petitioner to escape from the civil and criminal consequences, resulting from the accident, by contending that it was the vehicle belonging to Rupesh Kumar Pandey with which the accident took place. He admits having filed a petition before this Court for quashing the charge sheet dated 30.6.2010 wherein he was summoned under sections 279, 337, 338, 504 and 304A I.P.C. on the basis of the incident in question. However, this Court did not find any ground to quash the charge sheet. 14. It is noticeable that Rupesh Kumar Pandey had appeared in the witness box at the instance of the petitioner. He admitted the entire version set up by the petitioner in his written statement. It raises reasonable suspicion in the mind of this Court as to the bonafides of Rupesh Kumar Pandey in admitting that the accident took place with his vehicle, a fact which is stoutly denied by the claimants. There seems to be considerable force in the plea of the claimants, that petitioner and Rupesh Kumar Pandey are in collusion with each other. 4 All. Dayaram @ Rahul Kanvar Vs State Of U.P. 383 15. This court is of the considered opinion that the view expressed by the Tribunal in rejecting the impleadment application is perfectly justified. No ground for interference is made out, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed, but with the clarification that observations made herein, shall not prejudice the mind of the tribunal while deciding the claim petition on merits. -------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 3290 Of 2015 Dayaram @ Rahul Kanvar ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: M.C. Tiwari, Ali Hasan, Smt. Kiran Tiwari Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate Head Notes- Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 1.7.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Agra in S.T. No. 661 of 2012 (State Vs. Daya Ram @ Rahul Kanvar) arising out of Crime No. 939 of 2011, under Sections 307, 323, 376/511 I.P.C., Police Station-Sadar Bazar, DistrictAgra, whereby the accused Dayaram found guilty and was sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 307 I.P.C. coupled with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and 4 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376/511 I.P.C. coupled with fine of Rs. 8,000/-with default stipulation. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 and 376/511 I.P.C. is confirmed and rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 4 years and 6 months but the sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 307 I.P.C. and Rs. 8,000/- under Section 376 I.P.C. is maintained. The remaining sentences with default stipulation is also maintained. The fine should be paid before release of the appellant. If, the fine is not paid, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and six months. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 1.7.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Agra in S.T. No. 661 of 2012 (State Vs. Daya Ram @