Court No. - 45
1. Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3383 of 2018 Revisionist :- Amarjeet Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Siddharth Nandan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Tarun Agarwal
2. Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3426 of 2018 Revisionist :- Baba Baljit Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Tarun Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsels for the revisionist in both the revisions, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ajay Shankar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.9 in Criminal Revision No. 3383 of 2018.
This revision is directed against the order dated 30.8.2018 passed under 146 (1) Cr.P.C. by Sub Divisional Officer, Puranpur, District Pilibhit.
Submission is that during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the impugned order has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Puranpur, District Pilibhit without recording any finding that there is any apprehension of breach of peace. It is submitted that the power has been mis-exercised by the authority concerned.
The brief facts of the case are that there is a place of worship, which the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 3383 of 2018 claims to be a Gurdwara while revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 3426 of 2018 claims to be a place for Satsang.
The revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 3383 of 2018 claims that revisionist of Criminal Revision No. 3426 of 2018 was Granthi of the alleged Gurdwara and that he has been removed on account of conduct unbecoming of a Granthi. The claim of the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 3426 of 2018 is that he is Mukhya Sevadar of the place for Satsang and has been illegally removed by the revisionist of Criminal Revision No. 3383 of 2018.
Submission is that by the impugned order, Niab Tehsildar, has been appointed Receiver of the disputed property, which is unjustified.
Learned counsel for the opposite party No.9 has filed short counter affidavit in Criminal Revision No. 3383 of 2018 and it has been submitted that there is no apprehension of breach of peace. The members of the Sikkh Community are peace loving and the impugned order has been passed illegally appointing the Receiver.
It has been submitted that name of some Granthi has been suggested by the committee of management, but in view of the fact the Receiver has been appointed by impugned order, the entire activities in the Gurdwara has come to a halt.
After hearing rival submission and perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without recording any finding that there is some apprehension of breach of peace. As per the requirements of law, the order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Sub Division Officer, Puranpur, Pilibhit, for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. It is open for the Sub Divisional Officer to consider the appointment of some person having religious background as Receiver of the disputed place of worship/Satsang. It is also open for the parties to suggest a proper name before the Sub Divisional Officer, who will appoint someone conversant with the knowledge of Path of the Guru Granth Sahib. After considering his credentials the Sub Divisional Officer will make interim arrangement for protection of the place and for continuing worship over the place in dispute.
It is also hereby directed that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. shall be decided by the Sub Divisional Officer, after opportunity of hearing to both the parties, within the period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Interim arrangement will abide by the final order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid observations, both the Criminal Revisions are disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Ruchi Agrahari