# Smt. Kiran Singh & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 939 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-06 - **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kiran-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44088 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote 940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES G.A., Shri A.K. Srivastava Held - Challenge to Cancellation and Sealing Orders The petitioners challenged two orders issued by NOIDA (dated 24.2.2015 and 18.3.2015) which cancelled a 1990 lease deed and ordered the sealing and resumption of Plot No. U-01, Sector 11. NOIDA alleged that the land, allotted for an "Institute to organize the youth," was being used for unauthorized purposes and featured illegal constructions. Allegations of Procedural Irregularity The Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre argued that they had indeed filed multiple replies to NOIDA's show-cause notice (dated 13.1.2015). They contended that NOIDA passed the cancellation order by wrongly claiming no reply had been filed, thereby failing to consider their defense. Dispute Over Permissible Land Use The petitioners claimed that NOIDA was aware of and had implicitly consented to the running of a school on the premises. They pointed to corrections in the lease deed substituting "Office" with "Institution" and "Youth Centre." However, NOIDA maintained the land was strictly for an "office complex." Involvement of Third Parties (AETS and NIPS) A second writ petition was filed by the Nehru International Public School (NIPS) and the Atari Educational and Technological Society (AETS). They revealed a "joint venture agreement" with the Youth Centre to run the school, an arrangement that was notably absent from the Youth Centre's own initial petition. Criticism of NOIDA's Delay The Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with NOIDA for failing to file a counter-affidavit for over 15 months. Due to this "uncaring attitude," the Court could not verify factual claims and directed the Secretary of the department to take action against the responsible officials. Referral to Chief Executive Officer (CEO) The Court identified three core factual issues: the legality of running a CBSE school under the lease, the validity of the third-party agreement with AETS, and the extent of unauthorized construction. It directed the CEO of NOIDA to resolve these issues within eight weeks. Protection and Final Directions The impugned cancellation and sealing orders were kept in abeyance for ten weeks to allow the CEO to conduct a personal hearing and pass a reasoned speaking order. The Court declined to examine allegations of "mala fides" against the CEO because he was not impleaded by name. Preliminary Objections and Disposal 7 All. Smt. Kiran Singh & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 941 The Court left the question of whether AETS/NIPS had the legal standing to maintain the petition (given their lack of direct privity with NOIDA) to be decided by the CEO. Both writ petitions were disposed of with directions to adhere to a strict time schedule. ## Text 7 All. Smt. Kiran Singh & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 939 23. A similar view has been reiterated in Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P., 2010 (10) SCC 259. 24. As narrated above by not putting the above referred question to the appellant in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no prejudice is being caused and on mere technicality conviction made cannot be interfered. 25. Before parting it can be observed that during trial appellant failed to explain his presence on the railway station although one of the suggestions of the appellant to the witnesses was that he was vendor at the railway station and due to some money dispute he was falsely implicated but that fact has not been corroborated by any cogent evidence rather this fact was not at all narrated by the appellant in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There was no reason for false implication of the appellant. Learned trial court did not accept the explanation given by the accused. Incident took place in the district Orai whereas the appellant is resident of District Kanpur Dehat far away from the place of incident. Seeing the circumstances it was incumbent upon the appellant to explain his presence his false implication. Although this is not precondition for conviction of the appellant but once prosecution established its case against the appellant then certain explanations were required from the appellant. 26. The prosecution has successfully proved his case beyond reasonable doubt that psychotropic substance was recovered from the possession of the appellant. 27. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 28. Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae shall be paid Rs. 10,000/- within a month for assisting the Court. ----------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J. Application U/S 482 No.- 8313 Of 2013 Smt. Kiran Singh & Anr. ...Applicants Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite parties Counsel for the Applicants: Shri Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for the Opposite parties: 940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES G.A., Shri A.K. Srivastava Held - Challenge to Cancellation and Sealing Orders The petitioners challenged two orders issued by NOIDA (dated 24.2.2015 and 18.3.2015) which cancelled a 1990 lease deed and ordered the sealing and resumption of Plot No. U-01, Sector 11. NOIDA alleged that the land, allotted for an "Institute to organize the youth," was being used for unauthorized purposes and featured illegal constructions. Allegations of Procedural Irregularity The Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre argued that they had indeed filed multiple replies to NOIDA's show-cause notice (dated 13.1.2015). They contended that NOIDA passed the cancellation order by wrongly claiming no reply had been filed, thereby failing to consider their defense. Dispute Over Permissible Land Use The petitioners claimed that NOIDA was aware of and had implicitly consented to the running of a school on the premises. They pointed to corrections in the lease deed substituting "Office" with "Institution" and "Youth Centre." However, NOIDA maintained the land was strictly for an "office complex." Involvement of Third Parties (AETS and NIPS) A second writ petition was filed by the Nehru International Public School (NIPS) and the Atari Educational and Technological Society (AETS). They revealed a "joint venture agreement" with the Youth Centre to run the school, an arrangement that was notably absent from the Youth Centre's own initial petition. Criticism of NOIDA's Delay The Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with NOIDA for failing to file a counter-affidavit for over 15 months. Due to this "uncaring attitude," the Court could not verify factual claims and directed the Secretary of the department to take action against the responsible officials. Referral to Chief Executive Officer (CEO) The Court identified three core factual issues: the legality of running a CBSE school under the lease, the validity of the third-party agreement with AETS, and the extent of unauthorized construction. It directed the CEO of NOIDA to resolve these issues within eight weeks. Protection and Final Directions The impugned cancellation and sealing orders were kept in abeyance for ten weeks to allow the CEO to conduct a personal hearing and pass a reasoned speaking order. The Court declined to examine allegations of "mala fides" against the CEO because he was not impleaded by name. Preliminary Objections and Disposal 7 All. Smt. Kiran Singh & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 941 The Court left the question of whether AETS/NIPS had the legal standing to maintain the petition (given their lack of direct privity with NOIDA) to be decided by the CEO. Both writ petitions were disposed of with directions to adhere to a strict time schedule. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.) 1. Heard Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the records. 2. The applicant, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the order dated 2.3.2013 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Varanasi in Crl. Revision No.377 of 2012 whereby the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision filed by the applicant and has confirmed the order dated 24.9.2012 of the Magistrate rejecting the application moved by the applicant under Section 210 Cr.P.C. The further prayer of the applicant is to club the proceeding of Case No.538 of 2010, under Section 138 N.I. Act and Case No.518 of 2011, under Sections 406,504,506 I.P.C., Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that earlier on 09.3.2010 a complaint was filed by the O.P. No.2 which was registered as Case No.538/2010 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, P.S. Cantt, District-Varanasi. The allegations in the aforesaid complaint case was that on 23.10.2009, O.P. No.2 gave the applicant Rs.9 lakhs as loan. The said amount was transferred into the account of the applicant on 21.01.2012. A cheque of Rs.7,18,000/- was given by the applicant to the O.P. No.2 which subsequently was dishonoured. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the aforesaid case the applicant was summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide order dated 23.6.2010 and is facing trial in the aforesaid case. However, in order to mount pressure upon the applicant, another F.I.R. under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and under Sections 406,504 and 506 I.P.C. was lodged by the O.P. No.2 on 28.8.2010 with almost same allegations and as no F.I.R. can be registered under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 406,504 and 506 I.P.C. on 02.11.2010. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as a result two cases i.e. Case No.538/10 U/s 138 of N.I. Act and Case No.518 of 2011 are pending in two different courts at Varanasi with regard to the same cause of action. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had preferred an application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. before the C.J.M. Varanasi which was arbitrarily dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 03.6.2011. Against the aforesaid order, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No.2350 of 2011 before this Court which was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 18.9.2012. Thereafter, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No.377 of 2012 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, IInd Varanasi which was admitted vide order dated 942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 20.10.2012 relying upon the judgment passed in the case of Veer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 2010.(6) A.L.J. 210. However, the aforesaid revision was dismissed by the Court below vide impugned order dated 02.3.2013 in a totally mechanical fashion without application of judicial mind and without mentioning any ground for deviating from the previous view taken by the lower revisional court while admitting the aforesaid revision. Thus, the aforesaid order is in the teeth of the order dated 20.10.2012. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it would be a travesty of justice and gross abuse of the process of the Court, if both the cases are not clubbed together and their trial be not conducted jointly. Hence, it has been prayed that the present application be allowed and the order dated 02.3.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Varanasi in Crl. Revision No.377/12 be set-aside and the proceedings of Case No.538 of 2010 (Pushpa Singh Vs. Kiran Singh) under Section 138 of N.I. Act P.S. Cantt District-Varanasi be clubbed together with the proceedings of Case No.518/11 (State Vs. Kiran Singh) u/s 406,504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt District-Varanasi. 8. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the application. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 it has been submitted that the application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. for clubbing both the cases has rightly been rejected by both the courts below and there is no illegality in the aforesaid order because both the cases are separate. One case is in the nature of complaint and the another case is State Case in which charge-sheet has been filed and as such the State Case and Complaint Case cannot be clubbed together. 10. Considered the rival submissions of the parties. 11. Section 210 Cr.P.C. is reproduced below: "210.Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.-(1) When in a case instituted otherwise then on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. 7 All. Gulzari Lal Vs Babu Ram & Ors. 943 (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code." 12. A perusal of the record shows that the place, date, time and the parties involved in the occurrence are the same and in respect of the same occurrence, a State Case and Complaint Case are pending in two different Courts and the police has submitted charge-sheet in the State Case, hence in view of sub-section (2) of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. as cited above and to avoid contradictory findings by two different court's on the same issues, this application deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 13. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 14. The impugned order dated 2.3.2013 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Varanasi in Crl. Revision No.377 of 2012 is set-aside and the trial of both the cases are directed to be clubbed together and be disposed of in accordance with law. 15. Copy of this order be sent to the Courts below for further compliance. ------------ ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Writ B No.- 8689 Of 1971 Gulzari Lal ...Petitioner Versus Babu Ram & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri S.M. Dayal, Shri A.P. Srivastava, Shri J.N. Yadav, Shri Kamlesh Kumar Gangawar, Shri M.N. Singh, Shri Radhey Shayam, Shri Satyendra Naryan Singh. Counsel for the Respondents: Shri VBL Srivastava, Shri Ajay Srivastava, Shri Arun Srivastava, S.C. Held - Para 1: The court heard the petitioner's counsel and proceeded ex parte (without the presence of the respondents) as no one appeared for the respondents despite the case being called.