Back
2020 Supreme(All) 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
Mahanth Kalyan Das and others – Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and another – Opposite Parties
U/S 482/378/407 No. 4259 of 2009
Decided On : 08-01-2020
For the Applicant : Ravi Singh, Manoj Kumar Mishra
For the Opposite Party :Govt. Advocate, Ajai Kumar Verma, Hemant Kumar Mishra, Mohammad Ehtesham Khan, Rajesh Kumar Awasthi
Headnote:
Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 – Section 33, 39 – Uttar Pradesh Ceiling of Land Holdings Act – Criminal Procedure – Section 482 – Petition filed for quashing proceedings including summoning order and the order issuing boilable warrant against petitioners –Petitioners is recorded in name of Udasin Sangat Datavya Evam Lok Sansthan, Ranopali, Ayodhya of which Damodar Das, Disciple Mahadeo Das was the Mahanth and Sarvrahkar. After the death of Damodar Das, petitioner no.1, became Mahanth and sarvrakar as per inheritance and succession on basis of registered Will duly executed by Mahanth Damodar Das. Name of petitioner no.1 was recorded as Mahanth and Sarvrakar vide mutation order passed under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and name of Damodar Das was deleted, report was sent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, stating therein that on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar, Sadar, Faizabad mutation of name of Mahanth Damodar Das in khatauni as Sarvrakar was wholly legal and correct. It was further said that in view of the report of the Tehsildar and perusal of copies of the khataunis, order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate was correct. It was further said that it was not required to initiate fresh proceedings Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded his comments along with the report of Tehsildar – Held, Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed, saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction, Court finds that the continuation of the impugned proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court proceedings have been initiated with ulterior motive to achieve for extraneous purposes as a counter blast to the FIR against respondent no.2 and his brothers – Petition is allowed. (Para’s 28, 29, 30)
Facts of the case:
Petition filed for quashing proceedings including summoning order and the order issuing boilable warrant against petitioners –Petitioners is recorded in name of Udasin Sangat Datavya Evam Lok Sansthan, Ranopali, Ayodhya of which Damodar Das, Disciple Mahadeo Das was the Mahanth and Sarvrahkar. After the death of Damodar Das, petitioner no.1, became Mahanth and sarvrakar as per inheritance and succession on basis of registered Will duly executed by Mahanth Damodar Das. Name of petitioner no.1 was recorded as Mahanth and Sarvrakar vide mutation order passed under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and name of Damodar Das was deleted, report was sent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, stating therein that on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar, Sadar, Faizabad mutation of name of Mahanth Damodar Das in khatauni as Sarvrakar was wholly legal and correct. It was further said that in view of the report of the Tehsildar and perusal of copies of the khataunis, order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate was correct. It was further said that it was not required to initiate fresh proceedings Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded his comments along with the report of Tehsildar.
Findings of the court:
Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed, saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction, Court finds that the continuation of the impugned proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court proceedings have been initiated with ulterior motive to achieve for extraneous purposes as a counter blast to the FIR registered against respondent no.2 and his brothers.
Result: Petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings including the summoning order dated 6.6.2009 and the order dated 30.9.2009 issuing bailable warrant against the petitioners passed in Complaint Case No.3482 of 2009, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IInd, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya).
2. The case of the petitioners is that Gata Nos.799, 1011, 1013, 1014 and 1015 are recorded in the name of Udasin Sangat Datavya Evam Lok Sansthan, Ranopali, Ayodhya of which Damodar Das, Disciple (Chela) Mahadeo Das was the Mahanth and Sarvrahkar. After the death of Damodar Das, petitioner no.1, Mahant Kalyan Das, became the Mahanth and sarvrakar as per inheritance and succession on the basis of registered Will duly executed by Mahanth Damodar Das. Name of the petitioner no.1 was recorded as Mahanth and Sarvrakar vide mutation order passed under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and name of Damodar Das was deleted. A report dated 1.1.2004 was sent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Faizabad to the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Faizabad stating therein that on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar, Sadar, Faizabad dated 1.1.2004, mutation of name of Mahanth Damodar Das in khatauni as Sarvrakar was wholly legal and correct. It was further said that in view of the report of the Tehsildar and perusal of the copies of the khataunis, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 20.11.2001 was correct. It was further said that it was not required to initiate fresh proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Ceiling of Land Holdings Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded his comments along with the report of the Tehsildar dated 1.1.2004 to the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Faizabad.
3. Ram Bahadur Singh, respondent no.2/complainant filed a case under Section 33/39 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 on 27.2.2006 for correction of the revenue records in respect of the above gata numbers before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Faizabad. It was alleged that in the khatauni of fasli years 1375-1377 against Gata Nos.278, 279 and 389 in place of his father Rajkaran Singh, S/o Ramdhari Singh, name of Bhartendra Vikram S/o K.K. Nair and Smt. Shakuntala Nair, W/o K.K. Nair had been wrongly recorded. Similarly, in Gata No.889, in place of applicant's father, name of Sripal S/o Nanku, R/o Village Ranopali had been wrongly recorded. It was also stated that during the course of the consolidation proceedings when it came to the knowledge of the father of the applicant that name of the aforesaid two persons had been wrongly recorded against Gata Nos.278, 279 and 389, he filed Case No.1035, under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The aforesaid case was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 2.7.1977 against his father. Against the order dated 2.7.1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer, father of respondent no.2 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation under Section 11(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The aforesaid appeal was decided vide order dated 6.9.1977 in favour of the father of respondent no.2. Settlement Officer, Consolidation directed that names of Bhartendra Vikram, Shakuntala Nair and Sripal be expunged and in their place name of the father of the respondent no.2, Rajkaran Singh S/o Rambali Singh be mutated. It was stated that due to consolidation proceedings, the aforesaid gata numbers got changed and for fasli years 1398-1403 the aforesaid gata numbers were changed to 799, 1011, 1013, 1014 and 1015, which were part of Khata No.394 in the name of father of respondent no.2, Rajkaran Singh.
4. Father of respondent no.2 died on 27.3.1992 and, according to the succession, respondent no.2's name was mutated against the aforesaid gata numbers in place of his father vide order dated 19.11.1992 for fasli years 1398 to 1403.
5. It was alleged that after fas
