Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1408 (ALL)

Sanjay Singh v. State of UP

2025-12-11

ABDUL SHAHID

body2025
JUDGMENT : ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard Sri B.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj in Computerized Case No. T- 2025034000207389 (Shri Thakur Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Village Hathin, Pargana and Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj Versus Sanjay Singh and others), under section 164 B.N.S.S., Police Station Chhibramau, Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj. 3. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 5. During the consolidation proceedings, on the basis of a compromise, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Fatehgarh, District Kannauj, passed an order dated 18.08.1994, whereby Chak No. 82 and Chak No. 342 were allotted in the name of Late Baba Mahesh Das Chela in place of Baba Sukhram Das Chela Ram Das Vairagi as successor. The disputed Gata No. 226 (area about 0.259 hectare), Gata No. 288 (area about 0.77 hectare), Gata No. 251 (area about 0.3970 hectare), and Gata No. 294 (area about 0.77 hectare), situated at Village Natha Nagla, Mauja Bhaulpur, Pargana and Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj, and Gata No. 1316 (area about 0.67 hectare), Gata No. 1317 (area about 2.17 hectare), Gata No. 1318 (area about 2.06 hectare), and Gata No. 1019 (area about 1.76 hectare), total area about 6.65 hectares, situated at Hathin Mauja Bhaulpur, Pargana and Tehsil Chhibramau, Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj, belong to Sri Thakur Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir. In this regard, the Revenue Inspector prepared the khatauni fasli for the years 1427 to 1432 (01 July 2019 to 30 June 2025) for Gram Bhaulpur, Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj. 6. In pursuance of the aforesaid will dated 14.08.2024, the revisionists constituted a registered trust deed on E-stamp paper, namely, Sri Thakur Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir (Charitable Trust), of Village Natha Nagla, Mauja Bhaulpur, Post Hathin, Pargana and Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj, on 15.05.2025, and the said trust deed was thereafter registered before the Sub-Registrar, Chhibramau, District Kannauj. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that on 09.07.2025, opposite party no. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that on 09.07.2025, opposite party no. 3, namely Himanshu Chauhan, son of Ram Bharose Singh, filed an application under Section 164 B.N.S.S. before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj, with a prayer that the learned Magistrate appoint a receiver and seize/attach the aforesaid agricultural properties belonging to Sri Thakur Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, Village Hathin, Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj. 8. On 26.07.2025, after receiving the said application under Section 164 B.N.S.S., learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj, called for a report from the concerned Police Station. The concerned Police Station submitted a detailed report on 26.07.2025. 9. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhibramau, District Kannauj, issued notice to the revisionists, and upon receiving the said notice, the revisionists filed a detailed objection/reply before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhibramau, District Kannauj, on 03.09.2025. 10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the true fact is that paddy (rice) crops were standing on the aforesaid agricultural land, cultivated in the capacity of batidar, as allotted by Baba Mahesh Das @ Mahesh Chandra during his lifetime. 11. In pursuance of the order dated 17.09.2025, the local police of Police Station Chhibramau and the Tehsildar, Tehsil Chhibramau, have been attempting to dispossess the bataidars from the disputed agricultural land and have also illegally attached/occupied the standing rice crops on the said agricultural plots. Hence, the present criminal revision has been filed before this Court. 12. The revisionists filed this revision before this Court on 01.10.2025 along with an urgency application, which was received by the State on 01.10.2025. The certified copy of the order dated 17.09.2025 had been misplaced, and an exemption was sought with an undertaking that the certified copy would be submitted if required by the Court. On the said urgency application, which was presented on 01.10.2025, the matter was placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, who was pleased to consider the urgency and ordered that the matter be listed before the concerned Court on 02.10.2025 at 11:30 A.M. 13. The matter was placed before this Court on 02.10.2025 and an interim order was passed. Paragraph 10 of the interim order dated 02.10.2025 is quoted herein below: “10. The matter was placed before this Court on 02.10.2025 and an interim order was passed. Paragraph 10 of the interim order dated 02.10.2025 is quoted herein below: “10. Hence, considering the entire aspect of the matter, it is hereby directed that the crops, if any, standing over the land of the aforesaid mandir shall be protected by all the stakeholders and it should not be cut by any stakeholder on the pretext of the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 so that the crops may be safe and secure.” 14. The revisionists also filed an affidavit dated 27.09.2025 of revisionist no. 3, Omkar Singh, son of Raghuveer Singh, in which it is specifically mentioned in paragraph 2 that this is the first criminal revision filed on behalf of the revisionists under Sections 438/442 B.N.S.S., 2023 before this Court against the order dated 17.09.2025, and that no other revision has been filed or is pending before this Court or at the Lucknow Bench. 15. The opposite party no. 3 filed a short counter affidavit raising a preliminary objection only on the point of maintainability and prayed that this Court be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 02.10.2025 and dismiss the present criminal revision with heavy cost for performing such an illegal act, so that justice may be done; otherwise, the innocent opposite party no. 3 would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated. Opposite party no. 3 has specifically stated in paragraph 5 that the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhibramau, District Kannauj had already been challenged by the present revisionists on 24.09.2025 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj by filing Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 (Sanjay Singh and others versus State of U.P. and another). Hence, the present criminal revision against the same order is not maintainable before this Court. Opposite party no. 3 has filed a copy of the memo of Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 (Sanjay Singh and others versus State of U.P. and another) under Section 438 B.N.S.S., Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj, dated 24.09.2025. The certified copy of the memo of Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 indicates that it was filed against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025. 16. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. The certified copy of the memo of Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 indicates that it was filed against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025. 16. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 further submitted that the present criminal revision was filed before this Court on 01.10.2025, whereas Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 had already been filed before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj on 24.09.2025. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 that the revisionists cannot file a revision before both the Sessions Judge and the High Court at the same time against the same order. Once a revision is filed or decided by one forum, the revisionists are barred from filing another revision before the other forum against the same order, as provided under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 438(3) B.N.S.S.). 17. The Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 (Sanjay Singh and others versus State of U.P. and another) was filed before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj on 24.09.2025 against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025. As per the documents filed by opposite party no. 3, the said revision was admitted and registered on 24.09.2025, notice was issued, and the next date fixed was 03.11.2025. The revisionists thereafter filed a rejoinder affidavit of Chhangelal, son of Jage Singh. It has been submitted that when the revisionists came to know that the local counsel had already filed a criminal revision against the order dated 17.09.2025, they immediately and in good faith filed an application for withdrawal on 29.09.2025 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj. A copy of the withdrawal application dated 29.09.2025 has been filed as Annexure No. RA-1 to the affidavit. The said application dated 29.09.2025, was presented before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj on 06.10.2025, as is evident from the fact that the learned District and Sessions Judge passed an order on 06.10.2025 directing that it be put up on the date fixed. As per the usual practice in the court of the District and Sessions Judge, if any application is filed prior to the date fixed, the court orders that it be taken up on the date already fixed. Accordingly, the learned District and Sessions Judge passed the order dated 06.10.2025. Although the application bears two dates, i.e., 29.09.2025 and 06.10.2025, the order dated 06.10.2025 shows that the application was presented on 06.10.2025. Accordingly, the learned District and Sessions Judge passed the order dated 06.10.2025. Although the application bears two dates, i.e., 29.09.2025 and 06.10.2025, the order dated 06.10.2025 shows that the application was presented on 06.10.2025. 18. It is also pertinent to mention that the present Criminal Revision No. 6594 of 2025, filed before this Court, was prepared on 27.09.2025, and the supporting affidavit sworn before the Oath Commissioner, High Court Allahabad, is also dated 27.09.2025. The revisionists filed an exemption application stating that the certified copy of the impugned order had been misplaced, whereas the certified copy appears to have been filed before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj in Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 on 24.09.2025. The urgency application was allowed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice. In the affidavit dated 27.09.2025 filed before this Court, the revisionists concealed the fact that they had already filed criminal revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj and falsely stated that no other criminal revision had been filed. Thus, the revisionists used the entire machinery of the High Court as per their own convenience by concealing material facts. 19. The revisionists filed a copy of the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kannauj in Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 (Sanjay Singh and others versus State of U.P. and another). The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded that when the case was called out, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Sarvesh Yadav, was present, but none appeared for the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the revisionists endorsed on the order sheet that he did not wish to press the criminal revision. Hence, the criminal revision was dismissed as not pressed. 20. In reply to paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of opposite party no. 3, the revisionists, in paragraph 18 of their rejoinder affidavit, stated that the contents of paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the counter affidavit are incorrect and therefore denied. It is submitted that when the revisionists came to know that a revision had already been filed by the local counsel before the learned District and Sessions Judge, they filed the withdrawal application on 29.09.2025 without delay, and thereafter, on grounds of urgency, filed the present revision before this Court on 01.10.2025 during Dusshera vacation. Therefore, there was no bad intention to mislead this Court. Therefore, there was no bad intention to mislead this Court. However, the supporting affidavit in the present criminal revision is dated 27.09.2025, which is prior to 29.09.2025 and 06.10.2025, the dates on which the withdrawal application was filed before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj. 21. In view of the above facts, reasons and circumstances, it is categorically clear that the revisionists filed Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 (Sanjay Singh versus State of U.P. and another) before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj on 24.09.2025 against the impugned order dated 17.09.2025. When the notices were issued on 24.09.2025 and the next date was fixed as 03.11.2025, the revisionists, on 27.09.2025, prepared and sworn the affidavit in support of the present criminal revision and filed it before this Court on 01.10.2025, along with an urgency application, falsely seeking exemption for filing the certified copy on the ground that it had been misplaced, whereas the certified copy was filed before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj on 24.09.2025. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Chief Justice considered the urgency and directed listing of the revision on 02.10.2025, when interim order was passed. Subsequently, on 06.10.2025, the revisionists filed an application before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj in Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 seeking withdrawal. As per practice, no order was passed on the same date because the next date was fixed as 03.11.2025, and the application was ordered to be put up on the date fixed. 22. All these facts and circumstances clearly show that the revisionists filed the present criminal revision before this Court while concealing material facts and misusing the process of law for their own benefit, including seeking exemption from the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Accordingly, due to such concealment and misuse of the legal process, the present revision is liable to be dismissed, and it is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The cost shall be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within 15 days. 23. As far as the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kannauj in Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 (Sanjay Singh and others versus State of U.P. and another) dismissing the revision as not pressed is concerned, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 23. As far as the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kannauj in Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 (Sanjay Singh and others versus State of U.P. and another) dismissing the revision as not pressed is concerned, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The said criminal revision was duly admitted and registered by the learned District and Sessions Judge vide order dated 24.09.2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh versus State of U.P. , (2010) 3 SCC (Criminal) 307 has held that after admission of a criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing it in default, and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default and must be decided on merits. It is undisputed that Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 was admitted and registered on 24.09.2025; therefore, it could not be dismissed as not pressed. It must be decided on merits. Accordingly, the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kannauj in Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 is hereby set aside. Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2025 is restored to its original number. The revisionists are directed to appear before the concerned Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kannauj on 17.12.2025. 24. A copy of this order shall be sent by e-mail to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj, for compliance.