# Umashankar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 673
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-03
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5156 of 2021
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/umashankar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47461
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226 & Indian Penal Code,
1860-Sections 366, 376-D, 323, 342 &
SC/ST Act- Section 3(2)(v)-quashing of
FIR-petitioner
firstly
kidnapped
the
victim and thereafter under coercion and
threat shown marriage with her and also
obtained protection by filing Writ-she is
used as a shield to escape from the
offence or perpetuation of offences
under the garb of personal libertystatement of the victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
supported the FIR version-prima facie
fraud practiced by the Petitioner upon
the court.(Para 1 to 9)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

9 All Umashankar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
673
Gauhati and Allahabad High Courts, does
not represent the correct law. It may also be
seen that under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, in the matter of imposition of fine
under sub-section (2) of Section 13, the
legislatures have provided that the Courts in
fixing the amount of fine shall take into
consideration the amount or the value of the
property, which the accused person has
obtained by committing the offence or where
the conviction is for an offence referred to in
clause (e) of sub- section(1) of Section 13,
the pecuniary resources or property for
which the accused person is unable to
account satisfactorily. The interpretation
given by us in respect of the power of
seizure under Section 102 of the Criminal
Procedure Code is in accordance with the
intention of the legislature engrafted in
Section 16 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act referred to above. In the aforesaid
premises, we have no hesitation to come to
the conclusion that the High Court of
Bombay committed error in holding that the
police officer could not have seized the bank
account or could not have issued any
direction to the bank officer, prohibiting the
account of the accused from being operated
upon. Though we have laid down the law,
but so far as the present case is concerned,
the order impugned has already been given
effect to and the accused has been
operating upon his account, and so, we do
not interfere with the same."

6. The petitioners are accused in the
above noted F.I.R. The amount in question
was transferred by the informant -respondent
no. 5 to the petitioners in the aforesaid bank
account which has been freezed pursuant to
the impugned notice. The bank account of the
accused / petitioners is a ''property' within the
meaning of Section 102 of Cr. P.C. The
police officer in course of investigation can
seize or prohibit the operation of the said
account if such assets have direct links with
the commission of the offence for which the
police officer is investigating into.

7. Prima facie, there is a direct link
between the alleged commission of offence
and the aforesaid bank account which is
being investigated by the Investigating
Officer. Therefore, even though Section 102
Cr. P. C. has not been mentioned in the
impugned notice but the power exercised by
the Investigating Officer to freeze the bank
account in question is referable to Section
102 (3) Cr. P. C. The only irregularity which
appears to us is that the Investigating Officer
has not reported forthwith the fact of freezing
the bank account to the concerned Judicial
Magistrate.

8. Therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case in its entirety, we
do not find any good reason to interfere with
the impugned notice. However, we direct that
in the event, the fact of freezing the bank
account in question has not yet been reported
by the Investigating Officer, same shall be
reported by the Investigating Officer to the
concerned Judicial Magistrate immediately
and not later than a week from today.

9. Subject to aforesaid observation, the
writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A673
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5156 of 2021

Umashankar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, Sri Shantanu
Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Sunil Kumar Verma

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Article 226 & Indian Penal Code,
1860-Sections 366, 376-D, 323, 342 &
SC/ST Act- Section 3(2)(v)-quashing of
FIR-petitioner
firstly
kidnapped
the
victim and thereafter under coercion and
threat shown marriage with her and also
obtained protection by filing Writ-she is
used as a shield to escape from the
offence or perpetuation of offences
under the garb of personal libertystatement of the victim u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
supported the FIR version-prima facie
fraud practiced by the Petitioner upon
the court.(Para 1 to 9)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Gian Devi Vs The Superintedent, Nari
Niketan, Delhi & ors. (1976 ) 3 SCC 234

2. Lata Singh Vs St. of U.P & anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475

3. Bhagwan Dass VS St. (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6
SCC 396

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. &
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J)

1. Heard Shri Shashi Kant Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri
Sunil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for
the informant - resondent no. 3 and Shri
Rishi Chaddha, the learned A.G.A. for the
State - respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs:

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
First Information Report dated 16.06.2021
lodged by the Respondent No. 3 against the
petitioners in registered as Case Crime No.
0183 of 2021, under sections 366, 376-D,
323, 342 IPC and section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T.
Act, Police Station - Utraon, District -
Prayagraj.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding &
directing the respondents not to arrest the
petitioners in Case Crime No. 0183 of
2021, under sections 366, 376-D, 323, 342
IPC and section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act,
Police
Station
-
Utraon,
District
-
Prayagraj."

3. T he impugned First Information
Report No. 0183 of 2021 dated 16.06.2021,
under sections 366, 376-D, 323, 342 IPC
and section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act is
reproduced below:

"नकल तहरीर नहन्दी वानदनी सेवा में,
श्रीमान थानाध्यक्ष उतरािंव, प्रयागराज। नवर्य-
उमाशिंकर, रमाशिंकर पुत्रगण रामकरन मौया व
एक अज्ञात के नवरूद्ध अपहरण, बलात्कार
मारपीट, अनुसूनचत जानत मनहला उत्पीडन करने
के सबि में महोदय जी, ननवेदन है नक मैं
काजल कुमारी उम्र 23 वर्ा पुत्री स्व० मौजीलाल
पासी ग्राम खमहररया सीकी थाना उतरािंव
प्रयागराज की ननवानसनी हूँ। मैं अनुसूनचत जानत
(पासी) हूँ। घटिा धद० फरवरी 2021 को घर से
ब्य टी पालिर जािे समय धदि में लगभग 11.30
पर मेरा अपहरण उपरोक्त व्यखक्तयों द्वारा
कर धलया गया था। इि लोगों िे जबरि मेरे
साथ मारपीट कर यौि शोिण मेरा धकये थे।
और अज्ञाि जगह पर रििे रहे है। जो िैिी
के आगे जारी काटी के पास है। मेरे भाई ने
नदनािंक 6.2.21 को गुमशुदी की ररपोटा तथा बाद
में इन दोनोिं भाईयोिं को थाना उतरािंव को बताया
था। पुनलस से बचिे के धलए इि लोगों िे मेरी
9 All Umashankar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
675
शादी जबरि उमाशंकर मौयि से आयि समाज
मखन्दर िैिी में कराया था। और मारपीट कर
मुझे अपिे जीजा से यह कहिे को मजब र
धकए थे। धक रमाशंकर को एवं उमाशंकर के
साथ कोई कायिवाही िहीं की जाय। मेरी
सगाई 10 नदसबर 20 को अपने समाज के
लडके से तय थी। 24 मई 2021 को शादी होनी
थी इन दररन्दोिं ने मेरे साथ अत्याचार नकया है। मैं
धकसी िरह इि के चंगुल से छ टकर आई हूँ।
तब से अपने को न्याय पाने तथा इन्हें कठोर दिंड
नदलाने के नलए हर जगह प्राथाना पत्र दे चुकी हूँ।
अभी तक इनके नवरूद्ध एर्०आई०आर० नहीिं
हुआ है। आज नदनािंक 16.06.21 को मनहला
प्रकोष्ठ उ०प्र० लखनऊ द्वारा पुनः उतरािंव में
प्राथाना पत्र देकर एर्०आई०आर० दजा कराकर
उनचत धाराओिं में कायावाही करने की कृपा करें।
सदैव आप की आभारी रहूँगी। प्रानथानी हस्ताक्षर
काजल
कुमारी
(काजल
कुमारी)
मो०
7080666578 नदनािंक 16.06.21 नोट- मैं
कम्प्यूटर आपरेटर ग्रेड (ए) अनुराधा गुप्ता
प्रमानणत करता हूँ नक नकल तहरीर मेरे द्वारा
कम्प्यूटर पर अक्षरशः अिंनकत की गयी है।"

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that petitioner no. 1 had married
with the informant/victim/respondent no. 3
and had jointly filed Writ C No. 7852 of
2021 (Kajal Kumari & Another Vs. State of
U.P. & 3 Others), which was disposed of
vide order dated 12.03.2021; wherein, the
learned Single Judge has observed as
under:-

"Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view
that the petitioners are at liberty to live
together and no person shall be permitted
to interfere in their peaceful living. In case
any disturbance is caused in the peaceful
living of the petitioners, the petitioners
shall approach the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Prayagraj i.e., respondent no.2,
with a computerized copy of this order,
who shall provide immediate protection to
the petitioners."

5. Perusal of the impugned FIR,
prima facie, discloses commission of
cognizable offence by the petitioners.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
informant/victim/respondent no. 3 has
stated, before us, that on 23.06.2021, the
statement of the victim has been recorded
under section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she has
supported the First Information Report
version.

7. Perusal of the impugned FIR,
prima facie, indicates fraud practiced by the
petitioner no. 1 upon the Court to obtain the
aforesaid order dated 12.03.2021 passed in
Writ C No. 7852 of 2021 (Kajal Kumari &
Another Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others).

8. The Courts need to be cautious
enough to see that under the garb of
personal liberty of one, the personal liberty
of the victim, is not offended or under
allegation of marriage with her, she is not
used as a shield to escape from the offences
or perpetuation of offences. Facts of the
present case, prima facie, disclose that the
petitioner no. 1, firstly, kidnapped the
informant/respondent/
victim
and
thereafter, under coercion and threat shown
marriage with her and also obtained
protection by filing Writ C No. 7852 of
2021 (Kajal Kumari & Another Vs. State of
U.P. & 3 Others) relying upon judgements
of Supreme Court in Gian Devi v. The
Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and
others, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v.
State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC
475; and, Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396. This is, prima
676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
facie, abuse of process law which needs to
be checked.

9. For all the reasons, afore-stated, the
writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A676
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Second Appeal No. 176 of 1989

Ramesh Kumar Sharma ...Appellant
Versus
M/S Gool Poput & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Pradeep Chandra, N.B. Nigam, R.M. Singh,
R.M. Singh, R.N. Singh, Raj Mohan Saggi,
Rama Nand Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Radhey
Shyam,
R.Dixit,
R.
Dwivedi,
Shashwat Kishore Chaturvedi

A. Civil Law-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 100/115-land dispute-applicants
instituted a suit praying that defendantsappellants
may
be
restrained
from
interfering with the possession over the
plot shown by letters 'ABCD'-trial court
decreed the suit of the applicants for the
land
shown-appellant
preferred
an
appeal-appellate
court
confirmed
the
judgement of the trial court holding that
the land 'ABCD' are covered by lease deed,
hence they are the owner of the same-the
Court found illegality committed by the
court below in decreeing the suit without
getting the property in dispute identified
while deciding the substantial question of
law on which the appeal was admitted-the
court did not frame any substantial
question of law of remand, no grounds has
been taken by the applicants in the memo
of review petition that no substantial
question of law of remand was framed,
accordingly, the judgment under review is
not sustainable.(Para 1 to 46)

The review application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Naba Kishore Mohanta Vs.Janardan (2001)
92 R.D. 26 SC
2. Askok Rangnath Nagar Vs Srikant Govind Rao
(2015) AIR SCW 6318 SC
3. K.K. Kanan Vs Koolivathukkal (2010) AIR
SCW 156 SC
4. Lisamma Vs Karthiyayan (2015) AIR SC 2824
5. Sayeeda Rahimunnisa Vs Malan Bi (2016) SC
4653
6. Municipal Corpn. Vs Surendra Singh (2008) 4
AWC 3414
7. P. Purushottam Vs Pratap Steel (2002) 2 SCC
686
8. Thyang Rajan & ors.. Vs Vinugopal Swami
(2004) AIR SC 1913
9. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & anr. Vs N.
Raju Reddiear & anr. (1997) AIR SC 1005
10. Ram Sahu(Dead) thru L.Rs. & ors.. Vs Vinod
Kumar Rawat & ors.. (2020) SCC Online SC 896
11. Bhavnagar University Vs . Palitana Sugar Mill
Pvt. Ltd. (2003) AIR SC 511
12. Lily Thomoas etc. Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2000)
AIR SC 1650
13. St. of Haryana & ors. Vs Mohinder Singh &
ors. (2003) 1 AWC 567 SC
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

 Order on Civil Misc. Review Petition
No.178479 of 2011.

1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K.
Chaturvedi, Advocate on behalf of reviewapplicant, Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, Sri
Navin Sinha, and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi