1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2010
  6. /
  7. January

Ram Nath Pasi vs State Of U.P. And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|02 April, 2010


List revised.
None responds for the revisionist while learned A.G.A. Sri Shiv Badan, is present.
In view of the provisions contained in Section 403 Cr.P.C. I intend to proceed with this criminal revision which is one of the oldest and is pending for the last about 8 years.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
Under challenge in this criminal revision is an order dated 26.06.2002 passed by Sri Baleshwar Prasad, the then City Magistrate, Ballia by means of which he has rejected the application dated 19.04.2002 moved by the revisionist for staying the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. pending before the court below, till the disposal of Regular Suit No.294 of 2001.Ram Nath Versus Leelawati Devi pending in the court of Civil Judge concerned.
By filing an order dated 16.05.2001 passed in the aforesaid regular suit it was argued on behalf of the opposite party (revisionist of this case) that till the pendency of that suit the proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. be stayed. In support of the contention he placed reliance on the case of Brahmanand Rai Versus State of U.P. reported in ACC 1991 page 258 in which it has been laid down that if a civil suit is pending in a civil court then for the purpose of Section 137 (2) CrP.C. it would be construed to be a reliable evidence in respect of denial of a public right and the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. shall be stayed till the final judgment of the civil suit. From the other side reliance was placed on the following cases:--
(1) Smt. Qamarjahan and others Versus State of U.P. and others reported in ACC 1997 page 129 (2) Ram Adhar Upadhyay Versus State of U.P. reported in ACC 199 page 7 (3) Geeta Devi Versus State of U.P. reported in ACC 2000 Page 299 In the case of Smt. Qamarjahan (Supra) it has been laid down that inspite of pendency of a civil suit the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. can be proceeded with. In the case of Ram Adhar Upadhyay (Supra) it has been laid down that if the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. have been proceeded with, the same cannot be stayed merely on the ground that some civil suit has been instituted. Similarly in the case of Geeta Devi (Supra) it has been laid down that if any proceeding under Section 21 (1) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is not to be treated as embargo in proceedings with the case under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
After considering the aforesaid case laws the learned lower court observed that firstly the conditional order was passed by the learned S.D.M. on 18.09.2000 whereas the aforesaid plaint was filed on 16.05.2001 i.e. subsequent to the passing of the order by learned S.D.M. Secondly he observed that the case laws cited from the side of the complainant are recent and it has been clearly laid down in those cases that if a civil suit has been filed subsequently the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. should not be stayed. Last but not the lease observation made by the learned lower court is also significant. The perusal of the plaint of the aforesaid civil suit revealed that it was in respect of cancellation of a lease/license in favour of the complainant and it had no concern whatsoever with the obstruction/nuisance in the public path/way.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances after considering the case laws mentioned hereinabove the learned lower court rejected the application of the opposite party (revisionist of this case) vide impugned order dated 26.02.2002 and rightly so. I regret in not finding any embellishment in this order either on a legal or factual matrix. It is also worthwhile to mention that strictly speaking the impugned order is not a final order, the learned lower court has not disposed of the proceedings finally under Section 133 Cr.P.C. pertaining to Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia. It has merely passed an interlocutory order disposing of of the application dated 19.04.2002 by means of which the proceedings were sought to be stayed on the ground of pending of a civil suit which was filed subsequent to the conditional order passed by the court below on 18.09.2000.
It is also noteworthy that this memo of revision does not appear to has been admitted till date. 24 hours' time was sought and allowed to the applicant/revisionist to file supplementary affidavit vide initial order of this Court dated 04.09.2002. But thereafter the revisionist never cared to file any supplementary affidavit.
As mentionedabove despite revision of cause list nobody is present on behalf of the revisionist. Therefore this memo of revision is also liable to be rejected for non compliance and non prosecution.
In the conspectus of the above this memo of revision is finally rejected.
Inform the lower court concerned immediately.
Order Date :- 2.4.2010 PAL/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Ram Nath Pasi vs State Of U.P. And Others


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

02 April, 2010