Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36536 of 2017 Applicant :- Smt. Babita Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Singh Sengar
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
When the matter was called out in the revised list yesterday, none has appeared on behalf of the opposite party. On account of urgency pressed by learned counsel for the applicant, the matter was directed to be placed for today. Thus, the matter has been listed in the additional cause list. Today, upon the matter being called out in the revised list, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 08.09.2017 by which the SDM, Amroha issued order under Section 145(1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C. against the applicant.
The grievance of the applicant appears to be that while the applicant claims title and possession under the sale deed executed by his father-in-law in her favour and there are mutation entries her favour arising from such sale deed and further in a civil suit instituted by the opposite party (in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings under Section 145, 146 Cr.P.C.), there is no injunction operating in favour of the opposite party, the SDM, Amroha has first issued the order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. in which date was fixed for 25.09.2017 but at the same time, he issued another order under Section 146(1) which has the effect of attaching the property in dispute.
He further submits that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. have yet not been concluded despite lapse of almost five months though the applicant has filed objections in those proceedings long ago.
Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Yadav @ Gappu and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2013 (2) All JIC 528 and Brij Lal and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2013 (1) All JIC 356 to submit that the entire proceedings have been initiated contrary to the law inasmuch as during the pendency of the civil suit, it could not be initiated against the applicant.
Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, I find that as on date though the civil suit is stated to be pending, there is no injunction operating in favour of either party. Prima facie, it does appear that some evidence exists in favour of the applicant as to the possession, still it cannot be said that the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.
At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that the proceedings had been initiated in September, 2017 and almost five months have elapsed and the applicant is deprived of possession.
In view of the above, the instant application is disposed of with a direction that the SDM, Amroha shall ensure to conclude the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, necessarily within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 A. Singh