# Shrimati Anjuman v. Sri Shabbir - **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 454 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-05-10 - **Case number:** Criminal Application No. 1797 of 2010 - **Bench:** Shri Kant Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shrimati-anjuman-v-sri-shabbir-41582 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-397Criminal Revision-against summoning order-offense v/s 406, 409, 411 I.P.C.- dismissed on ground of interlocutory order-revision not maintainable-heldLearned Revisional Court committed manifest error of law- order Quashed- ## Text 454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 the suit was within time from the date of its institution as earlier the defendant respondent had not refused to execute the sale-deed, rather he had been encouraging the plaintiff appellant to invest money for raising construction for which he had also received an advance of Rs.1,000/-. 10. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was one of the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell that the defendant respondent will seek permission from the District Magistrate and will inform the plaintiff appellant regarding grant of permission for the purpose of transfer of the property by way of sale. It is stated that in the facts and circumstances of this case the trial Court has committed an error apparent in law in holding that as no notice was given by the plaintiff appellant to defendant respondent as to why he was not executing the sale-deed, hence the suit was time barred from the date of agreement to sell had been entered into between the parties. 11. It appears from the record that after taking advance of Rs.1,000/- the defendant respondent executed agreement to sell dated 31.7.1975. He had not objected to raise construction by the plaintiff appellant, rather he had encouraged her to raise construction. This does not amount to refusal for giving rise to cause for filing the suit in October, 1980, the defendant respondent inadvertently refused to execute the saledeed in pursuance of agreement dated 31.7.1975 giving rise to cause of action to the plaintiff appellant for filing the suit as such the suit was well within time. 12. For all these reasons, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal as to whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the suit was barred by time is erroneous, is answered in affirmative. 13. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order and judgment of the lower appellate Court are set aside and that of the trial Court is affirmed. No order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 10.05.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHRI KANT TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Application No. 1797 of 2010 Case: U/S 482/378/407 Sudhakar Singh @ Bhannu Singh Pradhan ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Arjun Singh Somvanshi Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate Code of Criminal Procedure- Section 482Direction of Same day-offense under section 452,323,504,506 I.P.C.- application disposed of in terms of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh-if surrendered within period of one month-bail application be considered on same daytill then there shall be no arrest. Held: Para 4 It is, however, provided that if the applicants Sudhakar Singh alias Bhannu Singh Pradhan, Laxman, Shri Chand alias Lala Chauhan, Bhannu Singh alias Satyapal Singh, Ramendra alias Vinda Singh in Complaint Case No. 2081 of 2 All] Shrimati Anjuman V. Sri Shabbir 455 2009 under sections 452,323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Lonar, District Hardoi pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Hardoi appear before the courts below and apply for bail within one month, their bail prayer shall be considered and disposed of by the courts below on the same day in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. & others (2009) 4 SCC 437. (Delivered By Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA and perused the record. 2. The learned Magistrate, keeping in view the materials on record, arrived at the conclusion that there were sufficient material on record to summon the accused. The finding of the learned Magistrate is based on proper appraisal of the relevant material. The petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the applicants, being law abiding citizen, want to appear before the courts below to seek bail, therefore, he may be provided some interim protection. 4. It is, however, provided that if the applicants Sudhakar Singh alias Bhannu Singh Pradhan, Laxman, Shri Chand alias Lala Chauhan, Bhannu Singh alias Satyapal Singh, Ramendra alias Vinda Singh in Complaint Case No. 2081 of 2009 under sections 452,323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Lonar, District Hardoi pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Hardoi appear before the courts below and apply for bail within one month, their bail prayer shall be considered and disposed of by the courts below on the same day in the light of the principles laid down in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. & others (2009) 4 SCC 437. 5. Till the surrender of the applicants before the Court or expiry of the aforesaid period of one month, whichever is earlier, the applicants shall not be arrested. 6. With the aforesaid observations the petition under section 482 CrPC is disposed of. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED LUCKNOW 11.05.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHRI KANT TRIPATHI, J. Criminal Application No. 1882 of 2010 Case: U/S 482/378/407 Kamal-Ud-Din @ Babu ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. And Another ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Abhishek Ranjan Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-397Criminal Revision-against summoning order-offense v/s 406, 409, 411 I.P.C.- dismissed on ground of interlocutory order-revision not maintainable-heldLearned Revisional Court committed manifest error of law- order Quashed-