# Tarabi & others v. The State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #45148
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tarabi-others-v-the-state-of-u-p-another-45148
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2ALL] Tarabi & others V The State of U.P. & another 53
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %
7+( +21·%/( %.5$7+, -
.5$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI

7DUDEL DQG RWKHUV
«$SSOLFDQWV
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQWV
6KUL 5DKXO 6ULSDW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 569HUPD
$*$

&RGH RI &ULPLQDO 3URFHGXUH 6
3URFHHGLQJV XQGHUVXLW XQGHU 6V % DQG
 RI 83=$ DQG /5 $FW SHQGLQJ([
SDUWH
RUGHU E\ FLYLO FRXUW KHOG FDQ EH
LJQRUHG E\ &ULPLQDO FRXUW LQ SURFHHGLQJV
XQGHU 6HF &U 3& DV LW ZDV ZLWKRXW
MXULVGLFWLRQ
+HOG 3DUD
2SSRVLWH SDUW\ QR LV WKH UHFRUGHG WHQXUH
KROGHU DQG QR RUGHU KDV EHHQ SDVVHG LQ WKH
VXLW LQ IDYRXU RI WKH SHWLWLRQHUV 7KH VXLW
XQGHU 6HFWLRQV % DQG 83=$ /5
$FW ZDV SHQGLQJ DQG LQ WKH PHDQ WLPH DQ H[
SDUWH RUGHU ZDV REWDLQHG IURP WKH FLYLO FRXUW
RQ

7KH
RUGHU
ZDV
ZLWKRXW
MXULVGLFWLRQ 7KH OHDUQHG $GGLWLRQDO 6HVVLRQV
-XGJH KDV ULJKWO\ LJQRUHG WKDW GHFLVLRQ $
GHFLVLRQ ZLWKRXW MXULVGLFWLRQ FDQ EH LJQRUHG
LQ SURFHHGLQJV RI &U 3&
&DVH UHIHUUHG
 , -,& $OO
By the Court

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. to quash the orders dated 1.12.98 and
22.5.99 passed by the S.D.M., Rampur in
Case No. 13 of 1997 u/s 145 Cr. P.C. and
Special Judge, Rampur in Criminal Revision
No.194 of 1997 by which they have held the
opposite party no.2 to be in possession of the
disputed agricultural land.

2. I have heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.S.Verma,
learned counsel for the opposite parties and
perused the record.

3. The contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that the plots in dispute
are plots no.101, 277, 279, 285 and 286
situated in village Paimpur, Tehsil Sadar,
District Rampur. Regarding these plots the
petitioner filed a suit for injunction to restrain
the opposite party no.2 from interfering in the
possession of the petitioners over the said
plots. The said suit was decreed on 15.3.89 by
the IV Additional Munsif, Rampur and the
copy of the judgement is Annexure-2. It is,
therefore, contended that the rights of the
parties have been decided by the civil court
and therefore, the proceeding u/s 145 Cr. P.C.
are not maintainable and the impugned orders
are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel
in support of his case referred to "Smt.
Neelam Singh & Anr. Versus State of U.P.,
1999 (1) JIC 607 (All)." It has held that if the
rights of the parties have been decided by the
civil court, the proceedings u/s 145 Cr. P.C.
cannot be taken.

4. As against this, the contention of
opposite party no.2 is that all the plots in
dispute originally belong to Smt. Allahrakhi,
who died in the year 1976. That she has a
prostitute and had illicit relations with Anwar
Ali, father of Tarabi, petitioner no.1. On the
basis of the said relations Anwar Ali posted
himself as husband of Allahrakhi and filed a
suit under Sections 229-B and 209 U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Act before the S.D.M., Rampur, which
was numbered as Case No.32 of 1987-88,
which was decided against him and the appeal
was also dismissed. However, Board of
Revenue has set aside both the judgements
and remanded the case on 29.1.96, which is
still pending. Anwar Ali died and in his place
Tarabi was substituted and other petitioners
are relations of Tarabi. That opposite party
no.2 is the daughter of Allahrakhi. Allahrakhi
died in the year 1976 and after her death, the
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
name of opposite party no.2 was recorded in
her place and she continued to be in
possession. It is contended that the suit was
decreed ex-parte by IV Additional Munsif,
Rampur and not information was given to
opposite party no.2. That the petitioners were
not recorded as tenure-holders of the land in
dispute and therefore, the civil court had no
jurisdiction to issue injunction in respect of
agricultural land. That the decree relied on by
the learned counsel for the petitioners is,
therefore, without jurisdiction.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
has considered the matter in great detail and
has held that after the death of Smt.
Allahrakhi in the year 1976, the name of the
petitioner was recorded over the land in
dispute and she was cultivating the land. That
the petitioners filed a suit under Sections 229B and 209 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was
dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed,
but in revision the matter has been remanded
back and is still pending. Opposite party no.2
is the recorded tenure holder and no order has
been passed in the suit in favour of the
petitioners. The suit under Sections 229-B and
209 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was pending and in
the mean time an expert order was obtained
from the civil court on 15.3.89. That order
was
without
jurisdiction.
The
learned
Additional Sessions Judge has rightly ignored
that decision. A decision without jurisdiction
can be ignored in proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C.

6. In the circumstances, it cannot be
doubted that opposite party no.2 is in
possession of the land in suit and therefore,
she was rightly declared in the possession.

7. I do find any ground to interfere in any
of the orders. The petition is dismissed.
Petition Dismissed.
----------
25,*,1$/ -85,
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %.5$7+, «-
7+( +21·%/( %.5$7+, «-

&ULPLQDO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI

9LUHQGUD 6LQJK
«$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
8QLRQ RI ,QGLD
«2SS SDUWLHV

Case crime Nil/99 U/s 9/56 Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act P.S. Parvartan
Nideshalaya District Varanasi.

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQW
6KUL $VKZLQL .XPDU $ZDVWKL
6KUL 0DQLVK 7LZDUL

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 2SS 3DUWLHV
Shri S.K.Singh

&RXQVHO IRU 8QLRQ RI ,QGLD
*RYHUQPHQW $GYRFDWH

)RUHLJQ ([FKDQJH 5HJXODWLRQ $FW 66 DQG
 UHDG ZLWK &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH
 ± $SSOLFDQWDQ DFFXVHG XQGHU 66 DQG
 )(5$ VHHNV D GLUHFWLRQ WR EH LVVXHG IRU
KLV LQWHUURJDWLRQ LQ SUHVHQFH RI KLV ODZ\HU
)ROORZLQJ
3RROSDQGL¶V
FDVH
WKDW
IRU
LQWHUURJDWLRQ
XQGHU
)(5$
UHIXVDO
RI
&RXQVHO¶V SUHVHQFH LV QRW YLRODWLYH RI $FW
 &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
+HOG 3DUD DQG
)RU LQWHUURJDWLRQ GXULQJ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ XQGHU
WKH &XVWRPV $FW DQG )(5 $FW WKH UHIXVDO RI
WKH SUHVHQFH RI WKH FRXQVHO LV QRW YLRODWLYH RI
$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
7KHUHIRUH WKH GHFLVLRQ RI $SH[ &RXUW LQ WKH
FDVH
RI
3RROSDQGL
LV
ELQGLQJ
DQG
,
DFFRUGLQJO\ ILQG WKDW WKH SHUPLVVLRQ FDQQRW
EH JUDQWHG WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU IRU LQWHUURJDWLRQ
LQ SUHVHQFH RI WKH FRXQVHO
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 $&&
&U 0$ 1R RI GHFLGHG RQ