# Shavez Khan Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Issues for Consideration

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 2081
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2935 of 2024
- **Bench:** Laxmi Kant Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shavez-khan-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-2082-indian-law-reports-allahabad-54489
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

4 All. Shavez Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2081

81. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial court has erred in dismissing the plaintiff 's suit, which
is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

82. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout. The impugned judgment and
decree dated 29.10.2005 in O.S. no.171 of 2003 is set aside and the plaintiff 's suit is decreed for
the following reliefs :-

(i)The plaintiff is entitled to a sum of ₹ 26.65 lakhs as compensation for the injuries suffered
by him, along with pendentelite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the
miscellaneous case i.e.30.5.1997, till its realisation from the defendant.

(ii)The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit and the appeal, including the court fees
payable in the suit and the appeal, from the defendant.

(iii)The defendant is directed to pay the above amount within a period of one month from
today, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to initiate execution proceedings against the
defendant for realisation of the decretal amount.

(iv)Since the plaintiff is permanently disabled and dependent on others, the compensation
realised from the defendant along with interest, will be deposited by the trial court in a fixed
deposit account of any nationalised bank or post office, bearing maximum monthly interest, which
the plaintiff will be able to draw every month for his livelihood. Without the permission of the
court, the plaintiff will not be able to withdraw any amount from the fixed deposit. Of course, for
medical treatment and other special circumstances, the plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the
amount from the fixed deposit, but with the permission of the trial court.

(v)Since the plaintiff is illiterate and poor, for executing the decree, he can take assistance of
the concerned District Legal Service Authority. The concerned District Judge is directed to assist
the plaintiff in this matter, so that, he may not be fleeced, for reaping the fruits of the decree.

83. Office is directed to send back the record of the trial court.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 2081
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE LAXMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2935 of 2024

Shavez Khan ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties
2082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether rejection of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground of absence of sanction
under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of a public servant was legally sustainable?
(ii) Whether a person who had accepted compensation under a Government scheme treating the death of the
deceased as accidental could subsequently seek criminal prosecution alleging that the same death was
homicidal?
(iii) Whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, should interfere with the rejection of an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. when the ultimate conclusion of the Magistrate was otherwise
sustainable?

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Ss. 156(3) and 197 - Application for direction to register
F.I.R. - Public servant - Rejection on ground of absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
- Legality.

HELD: Sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. becomes relevant at the stage of taking cognizance of the offence
and not at the stage of consideration of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Consequently, rejection of
an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. solely on the ground that prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
had not been obtained is not legally sustainable. [Paras 6, 7 and 16]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 156(3) - Direction for registration of F.I.R. - Applicant
accepting compensation for accidental death under Government scheme - Subsequent plea of
homicidal death - Maintainability of criminal proceedings.

HELD: Accidental death and homicidal death are mutually inconsistent factual situations. Where the revisionist
had accepted compensation under a Government scheme by treating the death of his father as accidental, he
could not thereafter seek criminal prosecution of the opposite parties on the allegation that the very same
death was homicidal. The inconsistent stand adopted by the revisionist rendered the allegations made in the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. unreliable and disentitled him to the relief sought. [Paras 8 to 16]

Criminal Law - Accidental death - Homicidal death - Distinction.

HELD: An accidental death is one resulting from an unintended, unexpected and unplanned event, whereas
homicidal death is the consequence of an intentional criminal act. The two concepts are fundamentally distinct
and cannot be equated. A claim founded on accidental death cannot simultaneously be maintained as one
based on homicidal death in respect of the same occurrence. [Paras 13 to 16]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Ss. 156(3), 397 and 401 - Revision - Interference with
order of Magistrate - Erroneous reasoning but correct ultimate conclusion.

HELD: Although the Magistrate erred in rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground of
absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the ultimate conclusion rejecting the application did not
warrant interference since, on the material available, the allegations set up by the revisionist were inconsistent
with his own conduct in obtaining compensation for accidental death. Where the final conclusion is otherwise
sustainable, revisional interference is unwarranted merely because one of the reasons assigned by the court
below is legally erroneous. [Para 16]

Revision dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa and Another case.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302.
4 All. Shavez Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2083
List of Keywords
Sanction for prosecution; Public servant; Registration of F.I.R.; Accidental death; Homicidal death;
Government compensation scheme; Revisional jurisdiction; Inconsistent pleadings; Magistrate's powers.

Case Arising From
Order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur in Case No. 662 of 2022, Shavez
Khan v. Rakesh Chand, Tehsildar, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Swar, District Rampur,
whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking direction for registration of an F.I.R. was
rejected.

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Krishna Dutt Tiwari.
For the Respondents: earned A.G.A.; Sri Alind Kumar; Sri Kiran Rani; and Sri Laloo Yadav

(Delivered by Hon'ble Laxmi Kant Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Krishna Dutt Tiwari, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned AGA for
State-opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Laloo Yadav, the learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2, 3
and 4.

2. Perused the record.

3. Revisionist Shavez Khan has preferred this Criminal Revision challenging the impugned
order dated 04.05.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur (hereinafter referred as
Jurisdictional Magistrate) in Case No. 662/2022 Shavez Khan Vs. Rakesh Chand, Tehsildar, under
section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Swar, District Rampur whereby the jurisdictional magistrate
rejected the application of the revisionist under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

4. Feeling aggrieved from that order, this revision has been filed on the ground that the
impugned order is illegal, perverse to law and has been passed without application of judicial mind,
and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

5. The factual matrix of the case in short is that the revisionist filed an application under
section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating that on 05-09-2022, at 05:30 in the morning, he along with his father
had gone to collect fodder for their animals. After harvesting the fodder, they returned to the banks
of the Kosi River in the Bhuvanra Ehtmali forest. At around 07:00 in the morning, opposite party
no. 2 accompanied by opposite party no. 3 and 4 and two unknown persons having rifles in their
hands, came from Akbarabad, started giving filthy abuse to father of the revisionist and making
allegation of illegal mining against him. Opposite party no. 2 told opposite party nos. 3 and 4 to kill
him by throwing him into the river. Upon hearing the noise, the witnesses reached there. Then, at
the behest of opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 threw the revisionist's father, into a deep riverbed and
stood there until he died. Two unknown persons pointed rifles at everyone and threatened to shoot
if anyone tried to save him. Responding to the revisionist's cries, people gathered and pulled the
dead body from the water. The revisionist's uncle, filed a complaint at the police station, but no
case was registered. The body was neither sent to the District Hospital, Rampur, for post-mortem
examination, nor post-mortem report filed. The body remained on the banks of the Kosi River until
evening. The police themselves wrote a written complaint on a plain paper signed by the
2084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
revisionist's uncle. The same night, a post-mortem report was filed. The revisionist sent
applications to S.P. Rampur in person and by speed post to get a report written in this regard, to the
Additional Director General of Police, Bareilly, to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh
Government, Lucknow by speed post, and to the DIG, Moradabad Division, Moradabad by speed
post on 14-09-2022.

6. The Jurisdictional Magistrate, after calling for a report from the concerned police station,
rejected the application on the ground that opposite party no. 2 is a public servant and as per the
directions passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Anil Kumar Vs. M.K. Ayyappa case,
prior sanction from the competent authority under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has been made mandatory
for prosecuting a public servant, which is not available on record.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist submitted that the permission under
section 197 Cr.P.C. is required at the time of taking cognizance meaning thereby if the matter is
investigated and charge sheet is filed against public servant without permission of initiation of
criminal proceeding issued by proper authority the Court cannot take cognizance on the same i.e.
different stage but such condition precedent does not apply to the application under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. and thus it is contended that the impugned order, having been passed on this erroneous
ground, suffers from material irregularity and illegality, and is liable to be set aside by this Court.

8. Per contra learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party
nos. 2, 3 and 4 vehemently opposed the criminal revision and argued that according to the post
mortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. It is pertinent to mention that
there is not external injury on the part of dead body of deceased. It is remarkable that the family of
the deceased treated the death as accidental death and moved an application for compensation
under government scheme and received Rs. Five Lakhs. Though the revisionist was tried to get said
amount immediately without following the process but opposite party no. 2 have no power to grant
such compensation immediately, the file was already forwarded by opposite party no. 2 to higher
authorities sitting at District Head Quarter and the action in District Head Quarter was to be taken.

9. In this circumstances the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 had no opportunity to do
anything with that application but under his whim the revisionist was making pressure on them and
in that pursuance he filed such application before jurisdictional magistrate. It is the dual standard of
revisionist on one hand he received compensation for accidental death of his father and on other
hand he wants to prosecute opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 for the same.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties referred page 16, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 22 and 23 of counter affidavit dated 11.12.2025 and urged that the opposite party nos. 2, 3
and 4 are public servant. Opposite party no. 2 is Tehsildar and opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are
Lekhpal who would have no enmity with the deceased, even no enmity has been shown in
application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 2. In such circumstances the story cooked in application u/s
156(3) Cr.P.C. is only a bundle of false and nothing more and the jurisdictional magistrate rightly
rejected the said application and passed the impugned order.
4 All. Shavez Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2085
11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist only argued that the
government insurance scheme is a beneficiary scheme and since the revisionist's father died under
unnatural condition and the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning so to get compensation
against that is his legal right under the scheme so he got it the same but though such drowning of
father of revisionist was caused by opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 along with two persons, so he is
trying to get them punished for the same.

12. Having heard the rival submissions and perusal of the material available on record, this
Court is of the view that accidental death and homicidal death are two different facts. A homicidal
death cannot be construed or treated as accidental death.

13. According to the Oxford Dictionaries, word accident is a noun having meaning:- an
unpleasant event that happens unexpectedly and causes damage, injury or death. According to
Cambridge Dictionary accident means something bad that happens that is not expected or intended
and that often damages something or injuries someone. According to Wikipedia an accident is an
unintended and usually undesirable event that is not deliberately caused by humans. Although in
ordinary conversations, intentionality is the only factor most people consider, formally, accidents
require three factors: it must be unintended, unpreventable, and unexpected. The term accident
usually implies the presence of unrecognized or unaddressed risks.

14. An accident is a event that unintentionally happened, that results in damage, injury or
harm. An accident is an event that has unintentionally happened, but this may or may not result any
damage, harm or injury. Further more it is an undesirable or unintended and usually results as any
harm injury damage or loss. It signifies a mishap, chance occurrence, or an unplanned incident.
Synonyms include misfortune, calamity, disaster, mishap, and chance.

15. An accident is an unplanned and unintentional event that especially resulting in injury
damage or harm. An incident is a broader term for any unplanned event, including those that do not
cause harm (near misses). Essentially all accidents are incidents but not all incidents are accidents.
In contrast, a homicidal death is the result of an incident which has defined meaning other than
accident.

16. When a person performs any action without any malafide intention to cause harm but
due to inadvertence the result of such action came out differently without the intentional role of
doer meaning thereby the result of act as intended by his it's doer was against his hope. On the
other hand a crime is result of an intentional act. In such circumstance, I am of the view that the
accidental death and a homicidal death is different to each other both cannot be summarized in one
definition. In such circumstance, if the revisionist has claimed compensation for accidental death of
the deceased, he cannot claim it as homicidal death. In such situation, though the trial court's
ground for rejecting the Application U/S 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was not good in law, but otherwise the
story presented by the revisionist before jurisdictional magistrate cannot be considered as true, and,
therefore, no interference by this Court with the impugned order is required.

17. Accordingly, the criminal revision, is hereby dismissed.
----------
2086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 4 ILRA 2086
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 10 of 2022

B.N. Tripathi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether the Kanpur Development Authority was justified in withholding possession of the leased plot
despite execution and registration of a 999-year lease deed and receipt of the entire lease premium?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs proved that the leased plot had been obtained for establishment of an industrial unit
and that they suffered loss on account of non-delivery of possession?
(iii) Whether the Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their
case despite the defendants having led no evidence?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to mandatory injunction for delivery of possession, damages for loss
of business profits, damages on account of escalation in project cost, interest and exemplary costs?

Headnotes
Lease-999-year lease-Industrial plot-Entire premium paid-Registered lease deed executedPossession withheld without cancellation of lease or forfeiture-Mandatory injunction.

HELD: Upon execution and registration of the lease deed and payment of the entire premium, the plaintiffs
acquired enforceable leasehold rights over the suit property. The defendants neither pleaded nor proved
cancellation of the lease, forfeiture, resumption or creation of any third-party rights. Mere withholding of
possession for decades without any legal justification constituted breach of contractual and statutory
obligations. The plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to a decree directing delivery of vacant possession of the
leased plot. [Paras 32 to 41]

Evidence-Registered lease deed-Terms reduced into writing-Contrary plea in written
statement unsupported by evidence-Effect.

HELD: The registered lease deed constituted the best evidence of the contractual relationship between the
parties and expressly acknowledged payment of the entire lease premium. The plea that the plaintiffs had
failed to pay the entire consideration, in the absence of any documentary or oral evidence, could not override
the recitals contained in the registered instrument. [Paras 32 to 36]

Evidence-Burden of proof-Statutory authority withholding best evidence-Failure to enter
witness box-Adverse inference.

HELD: Although the defendants pleaded that possession had already been delivered, they neither produced
the possession memo nor examined any officer conversant with the facts. A party withholding the best
available evidence and abstaining from entering the witness box invites an adverse inference under Section
114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act that the defence set up is incorrect. Mere pleadings without proof do
not discharge the burden cast upon the defendants. [Paras 37 to 40]