# Uma Shankar & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 169
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3212 of 2009
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uma-shankar-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50087
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 145 & 146 - Criminal
Revision - Challenging the order passed by
S.D.M. in a proceeding u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. by
which Application of revisionist, to drop the
proceedings, was rejected - court finds that, title
of the suit property is already decided in favour
of the revisionist and a Civil Suit is also pending
between parties an interim injunction is also
passed in favour of the revisionist - held, in view
of legal position highlighted by the full bench in
a case of 'Ganga Bux Singh' the proceeding u/s
145
Cr.P.C.
are materially
different
from
proceedings in proper suit and as such when the
proceedings in Civil Suit is pending regarding a
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
property then SDM has no jurisdiction to
proceed u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. - therefore, order
impugned is set-aside and the impugned
proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. are hereby dropped -
however, parties are at liberty to pursue their
cases in Civil Court - revision stands allowed.
 (Para - 7, 10, 11)

Criminal Revision Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Uma Shankar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
169
that the court had a duty to see that the
witnesses are examined for just decision of
the case and the court has to call and
examine a witness as court witness even if
the prosecution does not produce him
would be fine that the evidence of the
witnesses had an important bearing on the
case.

29. In Ramasami Vs. Sriniwasan
1987 (3) Crimes 89 Madras, it is held that
the criminal court is not just umpire to deal
only the material brought by the parties
before it. The court has to play an active
role in the administration of criminal
jurisprudence. Though, it is not normal
duty of the court to collect evidence, in
cases where justice requires, the Court has
power to further inquire into the matter in
order to ascertain the truth.

30. In Bhima Mudali and Ors. Vs.
State of Orissa & Anr.1996 Cr.L.J. 1899
Orrisa, In Chemo Steel Limited Vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh 2005 Cr.L.J 716 and in
Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan 2003
Cr.L.J 4704, it is held that a person not
examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can
also be summoned as witness under Section
311.

31. In view of the above, this Court is
of the considered view that the impugned
order is perverse and bad in law and is
liable to be quashed and the revision is
liable to be allowed.

O R D E R

32. This criminal revision is allowed
and the impugned order dated dated
31.05.2022, passed by Additional District
Judge-VI, Mathura in S.T. No. 433 of 2012
- (Smt. Suman Vs. Krishna Murari & Ors),
under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506
I.P.C, Police Station Vrindavan, District
Mathura, is hereby quashed.

33. The learned court is directed to
summon Dr. Ajay Gopal, to prove the
medical reports.

34. This order be sent to the trial court
ASJ-VI, Mathura, forthwith for immediate
and strict compliance.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 169
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3212 of 2009

Uma Shankar & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri D.K. Singh, Sri A.K. Rai, Sri Bimal
Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri A.K. Srivastava

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 145 & 146 - Criminal
Revision - Challenging the order passed by
S.D.M. in a proceeding u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. by
which Application of revisionist, to drop the
proceedings, was rejected - court finds that, title
of the suit property is already decided in favour
of the revisionist and a Civil Suit is also pending
between parties an interim injunction is also
passed in favour of the revisionist - held, in view
of legal position highlighted by the full bench in
a case of 'Ganga Bux Singh' the proceeding u/s
145
Cr.P.C.
are materially
different
from
proceedings in proper suit and as such when the
proceedings in Civil Suit is pending regarding a
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
property then SDM has no jurisdiction to
proceed u/s 145 of Cr.P.C. - therefore, order
impugned is set-aside and the impugned
proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. are hereby dropped -
however, parties are at liberty to pursue their
cases in Civil Court - revision stands allowed.
 (Para - 7, 10, 11)

Criminal Revision Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(AIR 1985 SC 472)

2. Kunj Bihari Vs Balram & anr., reported in
(2006) 11 SCC 66,

3. Mohd. Abid & ors. Vs Ravi Naresh & ors. (SLP
(Criminal) No. 544/2022,

4. Ganga Bux Singh Vs Sukhdin, AIR 1959 All
141.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Bimal Prasad, learned
counsel for the revisionists and Sri Hari
Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing
for the State. No one appears on behalf of
the private respondents.

2. The revisionists have challenged
the order dated 15.7.2009, passed by the
S.D.M., Chakia, Chandauli by which the
application of the revisionists for dropping
the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C., on the
ground that civil proceeding regarding the
land in dispute is already pending and
injunction has been granted in his favour
and issue of title has been decided by the
D.D.C., Chandauli, has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists
submitted that D.D.C., Chandauli by order
dated 23.8.1983, had already decided the
title in favour of the revisionists against
which a review application was filed by the
private respondents which was rejected on
11.2.2011 by the D.D.C. against which
Writ Petition No. 13761 of 2011 was
preferred before this court which was also
dismissed by order dated 8.3.2011.

4. It is further submitted that a civil
suit No. 182 of 1994 was also filed by the
revisionists for permanent injunction in
which application of the revisionists for
temporary injunction was allowed by the
civil court by order dated 8.4.1996 and
injunction order is also continuing. It is
also submitted that the name of the
revisionists have already been mutated in
the revenue record and Khatauni 14091414 fasali of the same has been annexed at
Page-55 of the revision. The contention of
the counsel in a nutshell is that once the
civil proceeding regarding property is
pending and title regarding same property
was also decided by the D.D.C., then the
S.D.M. has no jurisdiction to proceed u/s
145 Cr.P.C.

5. On the other hand learned A.G.A.
submitted that there is a report of police
station that there is apprehension of breach
of peace for taking the possession of the
property in dispute, therefore, proceeding
was rightly initiated.

6. I have considered the rival
submissions and it is clear from the record
that a civil suit No. 182 of 1994 regarding
same property is pending before the Civil
Judge, Chakia and an interim injunction
was also granted in favour of the revisionist
and also D.D.C. Chandauli by order dated
23.8.1983 has also decided the title
regarding the property in dispute in favour
of the revisionists. This order has been
affirmed up to this Court, therefore, there is
no occasion on the part of the S.D.M. to
4 All. Uma Shankar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
171
further proceed u/s 145 Cr.P.C. after
knowledge of the above fact.

7. The Apex Court in the judgement
of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs. State of
U.P. and others (AIR 1985 Supreme Court
472)
has
observed
that
when
the
proceeding in civil court is pending
regarding a property then S.D.M. has no
jurisdiction to proceed u/s 145 Cr.P.C.
against the said property.

8. In the case of Kunj Bihari vs.
Balram and another, reported in (2006) 11
SCC 66, the Apex Court observed that once
the right of parties is settled by a forum
then proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be
allowed to continue as the same would be
abuse of process.

9. In the case of Mohd. Abid and
other vs. Ravi Naresh and others passed in
SLP (Criminal) No. 5444 of 2022, the
legal position explained by the Apex Court
in paragraph-4 of the judgement is quoted
below:-

"4. It is, however, an admitted
fact that the petitioners have already filed a
suit for injunction in which ex-parte
adinterim injunction has been granted by
the Civil Court, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh
on 05.12.2020. Once the Civil Court is
seized of the matter, it goes without saying
that the proceedings under Section 145/146
Cr.P.C. cannot proceed and must come to
an end. The interse rights of the parties
regarding title or possession are eventually
to be determined by the Civil Court."

10. A full Bench of this Court in its
judgement reported in AIR 1959 All 141
(Ganga Bux Singh vs. Sukhdin) has
settled the position regarding proceeding
u/s 145 Cr.P.C. and observed that it is only
in the interest of maintenance of peace and
not in the interest of preservation of right of
any party. It was further held that the
proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. are materially
different from proceedings in proper suit
and legal position was highlighted by the
full Bench in paragraph-13 which is being
quoted below:-

"13. From the nature of the
provisions it is clear that the Magistrate
has been given this power pri-mirily to
preserve peace. The individual rights are
affected only incidentally.

The nature of the enquiry is quasi
civil. It is an incursion by the criminal
court in the jurisdiction of the civil court. It
is, therefore, necessary that this incursion
should be carefully circumscribed to the
extent absolutely necessary discharging the
function
laid
on
the
Magistrate
of
preserving the peace. The provisions of
Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure
make that amply clear.

The Magistrate does not enquire
into the merits of the claims of the parties
or even their right to possess the subject of
the dispute. He is only concerned with the
question as to who was in actual physical
possession on the relevant date. This also
indicates that the starting point of the
proceedings) must be the date when he was
satisfied that an apprehension of a breach
of the peace existed and not when he
received the first information."

11. In view of the above fact, the
impugned order dated 15.7.2009, passed by
the S.D.M. Chakia, Chandauli is set aside
and proceeding before him u/s 145 Cr.P.C.
are hereby dropped and parties are at
liberty to pursue their cases in civil court.

12. Accordingly, the revision stands
allowed.
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 172
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3318 of 2022

Nizamuddin & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Safiullah

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 83, 446 & 446(3) -
Criminal Revision - filed on the ground that,
the order impugned is illegal and against the
weight of evidence on record - maintainability
of revision - court finds that, when the
sureties produced the accused in the Court
before that the amount of the surety bonds
had been forfeited - From the principles laid
down in the aforesaid judicial precedents, it is
clear that, even after forfeiture of the surety
bonds, order of remission may be passed
adopting lenient view if the accused had been
produced by the sureties in the Court
concerned - Revision disposed of - impugned
order modified, direction accordingly.
 (Para - 14, 19, 20)

Criminal Revision Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajpal Vs St. of U.P., 2009 Crl.L.J. 160,

2. Jagannath Vs St. of U.P., 2008 (6) AllLJ 696
(All),

3. Jamila Khader Vs St. of Kerala, 2004 CrLJ
3389 Kerala,
4. Mohd. Kunju Vs St. of Karn., AIR 2000 SC 6,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Shri Safiullah learned
counsel for the revisionists and Shri Pankaj
Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. This revision has been preferred
against
judgement
and
order
dated
12.5.2022 passed by Special Judge POCSO
Act Sambhal at Chandausi in Criminal
Misc. Case No. 09 of 2022, Computer Case
No. 76 of 2022 (State Vs. Chandrapal and
Others) arising out of S.S.T. No. 34 of
2020 (State Vs. Faisal) Case Crime No. 207
of 2020 Police Station- Behjoi Disttrict-
Sambhal.

3. By the impugned order, the Court
below has ordered the revisionists to
deposit Rs. 50,000/- as surety amount after
forfeiture of surety of entire amount of Rs.
1,00000/-.

4. The present revision has been filed
on the ground that the order is illegal and
against the weight of evidence on record
and based on surmises and conjuncture.
The revisionists were not aware of the
proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C.
against them, when they came to know,
they searched the accused -Faisal and asked
him to surrender before the Court below.
The revisionists are very poor persons and
do labour work to earn their livelihood.
They went to Delhi for labour work and
their family had no knowledge of the
aforesaid proceedings launched against
them.
The
revisionists
moved
an
application 9 B before the Court below to
remit the amount on the aforesaid ground
but the Court below remitted the amount to