# Rama Shankar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 274
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6539 of 2020
- **Bench:** Pankaj Naqvi, Sanjay Kumar Pachori
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rama-shankar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45191
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 164 - Petition
seeking
Fair
investigation-despite
statements of the victim u/s164 Cr.P.C.
alleging
gang
rape
and
prima
facie
medical opinion indicating sexual assaultPolice gave a clean chit to accusedRemand Magistrate mechanically took
cognizance of offence u/s 323, 504, 506
IPC only and not u/s 376 D-impugned
order of cognizance quashed-disciplinary
enquiry against I.O.s and C.O. directed.

Held,
Once
a
police
report
disclosing
commission of a cognizable offence is placed
before the Magistrate the latter assumes
jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section
190 Cr.P.C. At the stage of Section 190 of the
Code, the Magistrate has a very important role
to play i.e. he has to take cognizance of the
offence on the basis of materials collected
during 10 investigation. The word "cognizance"
is not a word of semantics alone, rather it
connotes judicial application of mind so as to
enable the Magistrate to ascertain as to what
offences are disclosed on the basis of materials
collected during investigation forming part of
the police report. This is a provision of immense
importance which somehow seems to have been
lightly ignored resulting in casual / mechanical
acceptance of police reports. We do not intend
that a Magistrate should pass a detailed /
reasoned order but what we expect from them
is that they should exercise due diligence and
apply their judicial mind as to what offences are
made out on the basis of materials collected
during investigation since ultimately he has to
take cognizance of the offence not of offender.
para 10(i)) (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1.Sakiri Vasu Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2008) 2 SCC
409

2.Sudhir
Bhaskarrao
Tambe
Vs
Hemant,
Yashwant Dhage & ors., (2016) 6 SCC 277

## Text

274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.

6. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
----------
(2020)10ILR A274
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ NAQVI, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6539 of 2020

Rama Shankar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi, Sri K.K.
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A./A.G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 164 - Petition
seeking
Fair
investigation-despite
statements of the victim u/s164 Cr.P.C.
alleging
gang
rape
and
prima
facie
medical opinion indicating sexual assaultPolice gave a clean chit to accusedRemand Magistrate mechanically took
cognizance of offence u/s 323, 504, 506
IPC only and not u/s 376 D-impugned
order of cognizance quashed-disciplinary
enquiry against I.O.s and C.O. directed.

Held,
Once
a
police
report
disclosing
commission of a cognizable offence is placed
before the Magistrate the latter assumes
jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section
190 Cr.P.C. At the stage of Section 190 of the
Code, the Magistrate has a very important role
to play i.e. he has to take cognizance of the
offence on the basis of materials collected
during 10 investigation. The word "cognizance"
is not a word of semantics alone, rather it
connotes judicial application of mind so as to
enable the Magistrate to ascertain as to what
offences are disclosed on the basis of materials
collected during investigation forming part of
the police report. This is a provision of immense
importance which somehow seems to have been
lightly ignored resulting in casual / mechanical
acceptance of police reports. We do not intend
that a Magistrate should pass a detailed /
reasoned order but what we expect from them
is that they should exercise due diligence and
apply their judicial mind as to what offences are
made out on the basis of materials collected
during investigation since ultimately he has to
take cognizance of the offence not of offender.
para 10(i)) (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1.Sakiri Vasu Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2008) 2 SCC
409

2.Sudhir
Bhaskarrao
Tambe
Vs
Hemant,
Yashwant Dhage & ors., (2016) 6 SCC 277

3. Abhinandan Jha and Others Vs Dinesh 11
Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.
& Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

Heard Sri Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shiv
Kumar Pal, the learned Government
Advocate assisted by Sri Gambhir Singh /
Sri Deepak Mishra, the learned AGA's.

This is informant's petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking fair investigation in Case Crime
No.1070/2019,
under
Sections
452/323/504/506
IPC,
P.S.
Meja,
Prayagraj.

We are pained and anguished to
brazen abdication of the duties of police in
conducting investigation in a sensitive
10 All. Rama Shankar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
275
matter like gang-rape, whereby despite
statements of the victim under Section 164
Cr.P.C alleging gang-rape, and medical
opinion prima facie indicating sexual
assault, police gave a clean chit to the
accused for gang rape.

Background facts:

1. There appears to be a dispute
between the family of the victim and the
accused
over
landed
property.
The
sequence of occurrence can be split into
three parts-

GENESIS

(i) The first part came to be
generated on 25.12.2019 when 4 named
accused i.e. Pawan Kumar Singh, his
brother Arun Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar
Singh and Shani Singh, both sons of Pawan
Kumar Singh came to the house of the
victim at about 6.30 in the morning hurling
filthy abuses, taking objection to the
conduct of informant therein i.e. brother of
the victim and his family in not letting a
road to be constructed. Accused after
assault serious injuries to the family
members of the victim, fled from the scene.
An FIR in respect of said incident was
registered on 26.12.2019 at 6.27 PM as
Case Crime No.1070/2019 under Sections
452/323/504/506
IPC
at
P.S.
Meja,
Prayagraj.

1st GANG RAPE

(ii) That on 1.1.2020 at about 8
PM while victim had gone to ease on the
rear side of her house, 4 accused named in
the first occurrence, along with 4 other
unknown were, waiting for the arrival of
the victim and when she came, she was
dragged in an unnumbered vehicle (Model-
Duster) by 8 accused. On hearing cries for
help, father of the victim and other family
members came out of the house, saw the
accused armed, who threatened them with
life while the victim was whisked away. An
FIR in respect of this occurrence came to
be lodged on 2.1.2020 at 1.48 PM as Case
Crime No.3/2020 under Sections 147/366
IPC at P.S. Meja, Prayagraj. The FIR also
alleged that on 25.12.2019 the accused had
extended a threat that the family of the
informant would be given a newyear gift.

(iii) That on 8.1.2020, victim was
dropped from a vehicle near her house. She
was subjected to medical examination in
police
custody,
on
9.1.2020
which
indicated that her hymen was torn with
slight redness in the region. The doctor
opined as follows-

"There is no sign of force or
violence. So that sexual violence cannot
be ruled out."

(iv) That the statement of the
victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was
recorded on 14.1.2020 which is extracted
herein:-

vkt fnuakd 14@1@20 dks ihfM+rk
mez 19 o"kZ] iq=h jek'kadj feJk] fuoklh esgMh
nksxkjh dk iqjk] estk] iz;kxjkt dks }kjk foospd
eqUukykyu e; efgyk vkj{kh tkx`fr ljkst esjs
le{k yk;k x;kA ihfM+rk us l'kiFk fuEufyf[kr
c;ku fn;k&

?kVuk 1@1@20 dh gSa A eS 'kke 8-30
cts vius pkpk dks [kkuk nsdj ?kj ds ihNs
'kkSpky; tk jgh FkhA rc EkSus rglhynkj flag]
v:.k flag] vk'kh'k flag] lUuh flag dks ns[kk A
3&4 vkSj yksx Fks ftUgs eSus ugh igpkukA
rglhynkj flag us esjk eqg nck fn;k ftlls eSa
cksy ugh ikbZA fQj eS csgks'k gks xbZA tc gks'k
vk;k rc vkW[ks] eqWg vkSj gkFk ca/ks FksA vkW[k esa
iV~Vh gksus ds dkj.k eq>s dqN ugh le> vk jgk
Fkk fd txg D;k gSA ,slk yxrk Fkk fdlh dejs
esa gSA 3&4 fnu [kkus dks dqN ugh fn;k] ikuh
nsrs FksA ,d nks fnu ckn fdlh us esjh lyokj
mrkjhA
esjs
lkFk
xyr
dke
fd;k
(cykRdkj)@xyr dke djus ds ckn lyokj
iguk nhA 2&3 fnu ckn csgks'k djds fMDdh eas
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
j[kk xkM+h dhA eq>s ugh irk fdrus le; fMDdh
esa FkhA vkW[kksa es iV~Vh ca/kh FkhA eq>s ugh irk
xkM+h es fdrus yksx FksA esjs lkFk 3&4 ckj xyr
dke (cykRdkj) fd;k x;k ijUrq fdlus fd, ;g
ugh irkA 8@1@2020 dks eq>s ?kj ds ihNs xkM+h
ls mrkj fn;k x;kA tc eq>s NksM+k rc gkFk [kksy
dj NksM+kA rc eSus vka[kks dh iV~Vh [kksyh vkSj
ns[kk yky jax dh xkM+h tk jgh FkhA uEcj ugh
ns[k ikbZA rglhynkj] v:.kflag vkSj muds csVks
ls tehu dk fookn py jgk Fkk geus
25@12@19 dks iqfyl cqykbZ rc lUuh flag us
dgk Fkk fd cPph eSa rqEgsa u, lky ds fnu fxQ~V
nwxkWA tc eS ?kj xbZ rc iqfyl FkhA blds
vfrfjDr eq>s dqN ugh dgukA
lqudj rLnhd fd;k

Sd. Victim

tSlk lquk esjs }kjk

v{kj'k fy[kk x;kA
Sd. vLi"V
14@1@20
JM II
Copied by Manish Chandra

(iv) A perusal of the above
statement, would prima facie indicate that
the victim was subjected to repeated sexual
assaults while her hands were tied and eyes
blind-folded.

(v)
That
on
22.1.2020,
an
application was given to A.D.G of the Zone
that police of Police Station Meja was not
taking any concrete action including arrest
of the accused named in the FIR as it had
colluded with the accused, investigation of
Case Crime No.3/2020 be transferred to
any other police station of the district. After
investigation, a charge-sheet came to be
submitted on 29.3.2020 in Case Crime
No.3
of
2020
only
under
Sections
323/504/506 IPC only, exonerating all
accused at the stage of investigation under
Sections 147/366/376-D IPC. The Remand
Magistrate mechanically took cognizance
of the offence on 1.5.2020 under Sections
323/504/506 IPC only.

2nd GANG RAPE

(vi) That the unfortunate tale of
woes for the victim did not end as accused
Abhishek @ Shani after being enlarged on
bail under Section 323/504/506 IPC started
extending threats to the victim so much so
that she had to be shifted to the house of
her maternal uncle from where she was
again abducted in vehicle on 17.5.2020 at
about 8 PM while she had gone to ease
herself, in respect of which an FIR as Case
Crime
No.264/2020
under
Sections
363/366 IPC came to be lodged against
unknown.

(vii) That as the whereabouts of
the victim were not known, a Habeas
Corpus Writ Petition No. 277/2020 came to
be filed by the father of the victim for the
recovery of his daughter i.e. the victim.
This Court on 16.6.2020 directed the
S.S.P., Prayagraj to recover and produce
the victim before the court. The corpus /
victim was produced before the court on
9.7.2020 and on her statement was handed
over to the custody of her parents.

(viii)
That
subsequently
her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in
Case Crime No.264/2020 was recorded on
17.8.2020 which is extracted hereunder:-

C;kudrhZe; foospd ,ao efgyk vkj{kh
esjs le{k mifLFkrA foospd }kjk C;kudrhZ dh
f'kuk[r dh x;hA

Ck;kudrhZ mez 19 o"kZ iq=h jek"kadj
feJk fu0 ysgM+h Fkkuk& estk eq0 v0 la0
264@20] /kkjk 363] 366] 120ch Hk0 n0 la0 eas
l"kiFk C;ku fn;k fd 1@01@2020 dks esjk
vkigj.k v:.k flag] iou flag mQZ rglhynkj]
vk"kh'k flag] vfHk'ksd flag mQZ luh us fd;k FkkA
vkSj vkB fnu dj eq>s ,d dejs esa j[kkA vkSj
esjs lkFk tcjnLrh 'kkjhfjd laca/k cuk;kA ml
le; vk'kh'k flag vkSj v:.k flag us esjs lkFk
'kkjhfjd laca/k cuk;k FkkA bl ?kVuk dh FIR Hkh
gq;h FkhA nwljh ckj 17@05@2020 dks esjk
vkigj.k vejsUnz flag mQZ iadt] vk'kh"k flag us
fd;kA eSa vius ekek ds ?kj x;h FkhA ogkW ls esjk
10 All. Rama Shankar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
277
vkigj.k fd;kA ,d efguk rd eq>s ,d dejs esa
cUn djds j[kkA ogkW ij v:.k flag us esjs lkFk
tcjnLrh 'kkjhfjd laca/k cuk;kA ,d vkSj vkneh
Hkh vkrk Fkk ysfdu oks eqag

;g c;ku C;kudrhZ ds cksyus ij
v{kj'k% fy[kk x;k vkSj I
Sd. victim
Sd. vLi"V 17@8@2020
C.J. (S.D.) F.T.C.
Prayagraj

(ix) That from a perusal of above
statement it transpires that the victim
alleged that she was initially abducted on
1.1.2020 by above named accused and
again on 17.5.2020 from her maternal
uncle's house by accused Amrendra Singh
@ Pankaj and Ashish Singh who put her in
house arrest for a month, wherein she was
sexually assaulted by accused Arun Singh
and another unknown who always used to
come hiding his face and that at first
available opportunity she managed her
escape, met a stranger namely Neeraj @
Degree on road who took her to the police
station where she was made to sign some
papers that she is the wife of one
Dharampal
which
she
denied,
that
Dharampal is aged about 50 years, is
already married with whom she has no
connection.

2. That this court while entertaining
this writ petition on 27.8.2020 had directed
the I.O. concerned to file his personal
affidavit as to why accused had not been
arrested and to conclude investigation. It
appears
that
the
petitioner
had
no
knowledge that a charge-sheet had been
filed against the accused in Case Crime
No.3/2020 under Sections 323/504/506 IPC
on 29.3.2020 as this fact was alleged for
the 1st time in the personal affidavit dated
22.9.2020 of the IO.

3. We are conscious that when a
matter is pending investigation, we are not
expected to comment on merit/demerits of
the case which may prejudice either of the
parties or to direct the police to act in a
particular manner. But where materials
collected during investigation are such i.e.
the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
and the medical opinion, prima facie not
ruling out sexual assault, then the I.O.
cannot be oblivious to the same, followed
by mechanical cognizance by Remand
Magistrate exonerating the accused for
gang rape. In our considered opinion, it is
not one of those cases where petitioner
should be relegated to avail the option of a
protest.

4.

The
learned
Government
Advocated / A.G.A. faced with repeated
queries as to how the State can justify such
an investigation, both the learned G.A /
A.G.A. and the S.S.P. present in person
along with 2 Investigation Officers had
nothing to offer.

5. The learned AGA also informed us
that a final report has also been submitted
in Case Crime No.264/2020 (2nd gang
rape), exonerating the accused from all
offences i.e. under Sections 363/366 IPC.

6. We lest not forget that the second
alleged gang-rape is connected with the
first gang-rape as the victim and the
accused are same and the statement of the
victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and
medical opinion in the second gang rape
are also on record of the writ petition. We,
therefore, find no justification to relegate
the petitioner to file a second petition for
fair
investigation
in
Case
Crime
No.264/2020 as relevant materials are on
record.
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. We in the light of above are of the
considered view that the I.O.'s of Case
Crime No.3 & 264, both of 2020 and the
Circle Officer concerned, who were vested
with the duty to conduct and supervise
investigation fairly and to take a call as to
under what offences police report is to be
filed from the materials emerging from
investigation i.e. Section 164 Cr.P.C.
statement and the medical opinion not
ruling out sexual assault, turned a blind
eye, while giving clean chit to accused for
gang-rape, warranting a disciplinary action.

8. We clarify that observations made
above are only for the limited purposes at
this stage i.e. whether there were relevant
materials before the Magistrate for taking
cognizance for an offence under gang rape
and the trial court shall be at liberty to
decide without being influenced by any
observations made above.

9. We direct:-

(i) The order of cognizance
dated 1.5.2020 passed by the Remand
Magistrate in Case Crime No.3/2020,
under Sections 247/366 IPC, P.S. Meja,
Prayagraj is quashed. The learned
Jurisdictional Magistrate is directed to
take fresh cognizance on available
materials at the earliest.

(ii) The Competent Authority is
directed to immediately place the I.O.'s
of Case Crime No. 3 & 264, both of 2020
and the Circle Officer concerned under
suspension and institute disciplinary
proceedings against them which shall be
conducted by an officer not below the
rank of Superintendent of Police. The
disciplinary
proceedings
shall
be
completed as expeditiously as possible
preferably within 2 months and the
action taken be apprised to the court in a
sealed cover on 18.12.2020.

(iii) The Disciplinary Authority
shall not hesitate in invoking the
provisions of Section 166-A IPC and
other offences, if need be, against the
erring police officials.

(iv)
The
victim
shall
be
provided adequate security (24 x 7) at
the expense of the State. She shall be
escorted in a police vehicle to record her
evidence in the Court and the witness
protection scheme formulated by the
Apex Court in Mahendra Chawla and
Others vs. Union of India and others in
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156/2016
on 5.12.2018 shall be adhered to.

A word for Magistracy on
"cognizance"

10. Magistracy constitutes a very
important
chain
in
the
criminal
administration justice system as it is the
court of first instance. The moment an
FIR in respect of a cognizable offence is
lodged,
the
Jurisdictional
Magistrate
assumes
competency
and
power
to
supervise ongoing investigation with
minimal
but
legitimate
interference.
Reference may be made to the decision of
the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu vs. State
of U.P. and others and (2008) 2 SCC
409 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v.
Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others,
(2016) 6 SCC 277. Upon conclusion of
investigation, the I.O. through the S.H.O
is obliged to submit a police report along
with all relevant materials collected
during investigation under Section 173(2)
of the Code before the competent
Magistrate, disclosing commission of a
particular offence or a closure report, as
the case may be.
10 All. Rama Shankar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
279

(i) Once a police report disclosing
commission of a cognizable offence is
placed before the Magistrate the latter
assumes jurisdiction to take cognizance
under Section 190 Cr.P.C. At the stage of
Section 190 of the Code, the Magistrate has
a very important role to play i.e. he has to
take cognizance of the offence on the basis
of materials collected during investigation.
The word "cognizance" is not a word of
semantics alone, rather it connotes judicial
application of mind so as to enable the
Magistrate to ascertain as to what offences
are disclosed on the basis of materials
collected during investigation forming part
of the police report. This is a provision of
immense
importance
which
somehow
seems to have been lightly ignored
resulting in casual / mechanical acceptance
of police reports. We do not intend that a
Magistrate should pass a detailed /
reasoned order but what we expect from
them is that they should exercise due
diligence and apply their judicial mind as to
what offences are made out on the basis of
materials collected during investigation
since ultimately he has to take cognizance
of the offence not of offender.

(ii) Take the example of the
present case. The FIR in Case Crime
No.3/2020 alleged abduction of the victim,
and the same was registered under Sections
147/366 IPC but the charge-sheet came to
be submitted under Sections 323/504/506
IPC even after allegation of gang-rape
under Section 164 Cr.P.C and medical
opinion prima facie in support thereof. A
vigilant Magistrate at the stage of Section
190 Cr.P.C is at least expected to go
through the FIR and ought to have looked
for statement of the victim and medical
evidence, if any, which could have enabled
him to take cognizance of the offences
disclosed on the basis of materials brought
before him along with the police report.

(iii) The casual approach of the
Magistrate at the stage of Section 190
Cr.P.C is resulting in unscrupulous writ
petitions
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C
petitions / Article 226 petitions for further /
fair investigation to already overburdened
court. We find useful to quote the
following paragraph of the judgement of
the Apex Court in Abhinandan Jha and
Others vs. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC
117.

16. The use of the words 'may
take cognizance of any offence', in sub-s.
(1) of s. 190 in our opinion imports the
exercise of a 'judicial discretion', and the
Magistrate, who receives the report,
under s.. 173, will have to consider the
said report and judicially take a decision,
whether or not to take cognizance of the
offence. From this it follows that it is not
as if that the Magistrate is bound to
accept , the opinion of the police that
there is a case for placing the accused, on
trial. It is open to the Magistrate to take
the view that the facts disclosed in the
report do not make out an offence for
taking cognizance or he may take the
view that there is no sufficient evidence
to justify an accused being put on trial.
On
either
of
these
grounds,
the
Magistrate will be perfectly justified in
declining to take cognizance of an
offence, irrespective of the opinion of the
police. On the other hand, if the
Magistrate agrees with the report, which
is a charge-sheet submitted by the police,
no difficulty whatsoever is caused,
because he will have full jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the offence, under s.
190(1)(b) of the Code. This will be the
position, when thereport under s. 173, is
a charge-sheet.

17. Then the question is, what is
the position, when the Magistrate is
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dealing with a report submitted by the
police, under s. 173, that no case is made
out for sending up an accused for trial,
which report, as we have already
indicated, is called, in the area in
question, as a 'final report'? Even in
those cases, if the Magistrate agrees with
the said report, he may accept the final
report and close the proceedings. But
there may be instances when the
Magistrate may take the view, on a
consideration of the final report, that the
opinion formed by the police is not based
on a full and complete investigation, in
which
case,
in
our
opinion,
the
Magistrate will have ample jurisdiction
to give directions to the police, under s.
156(3), to make a further investigation.
That is, if the Magistrate feels, after
considering the final report, that the
investigation
is
unsatisfactory,
or
incomplete, or that there is scope for
further investigation, it will be open to
the Magistrate to decline to accept the
final report and direct the police to make
further investigation, under s. 156(3).
The
police,
after
such
further
investigation, may submit a chargesheet, or, again submit a final report,
depending upon the further investigation
made by them. If ultimately, the
Magistrate forms the opinion that the
facts, set out in the final report,
constitute an offence, he can take
cognizance of the offence under Section
190(1)(c), notwithstanding the contrary
opinion of the police, expressed in the
final report.

11. We have no doubt that if the
learned Magistrate go by above position of
law then it will not only provide
expeditious justice to the aggrieved but will
also curtail frivolous petitions for further /
fair investigation before this Court.

12. The Registrar General is directed
to communicate this order to all the
Judgeships, in particular the Sessions
Judge, Prayagraj, the Director, Judicial
Training and Research Institute, Lucknow,
the Director General of Police, U.P.,
Lucknow,
the
I.G.,
Prayagraj
Zone,
Prayagraj,
the
S.S.P,
Prayagraj
for
necessary action forthwith.

13. Put up for compliance / for further
hearing on 13.10.2020.
----------
(2020)10ILR A280
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Second Appeal No. 1711 of 1991

Paras Nath & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Vishwanath ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri V.K. Singh, Sri A.L. Tripathi, Sri Ashok
Kumar Jaiswal, Sri Bhagwan Dutt Pandey,
Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav, Sri N.K. Singh, Sri
Neeraj Shukla, Sri S.K. Singh, Sri Siddharth
Jaiswal, Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shailendra Kumar, Sri Dharmendra
Kumar Nirankar, Sri R.P. Ram, Sri Ram
Avtar Pandey, Sri Ram Dular Patel, S.M.A.
Abdy, Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, Sri
Vinod Kumar Maurya

A. Civil Law - Specific Relief Act,1963 -
Section
16(c)-application-claim
for
specific
performance
of
a
registered
agreement to sell of agricultural landplaintiffs were not ready and willing to
perform their part of the suit agreement,
so as to entitle them to a decree for