State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Ravi Prakash Srivastava and Another

(V. Gopala Gowda and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2012

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others _____________________ Appellant(s)

v.

Ravi Prakash Srivastava and Another ________________ Respondent(s)

With

Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2013

Saraswati Shishu Mandir _____________________________ Appellant

v.

State of Uttar Pradesh and others .…. Respondent(s)

Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2013, decided on July 13, 2016

The Order of the court was delivered by

Order

1. These appeals have been preferred against the interim orders dated 7^th July 2011 and 27^th September, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 3526 (M/B) (Crl.) of 2011. The writ petition, on which the orders have been passed has been filed by Respondent-Ravi Praskash Srivastava, seeking to quash FIR dated 29^th September, 2010 registered as Case Crime No. 705/10 under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC at P.S. Maholi, District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh.

2. According to the respondent original petitioner, he was the manager of the Society running a school for many years but the complainant lodged FIR alleging that the documents on which the school acquired the land were not genuine. It was also submitted that an FIR had already been lodged on the same issue by the brother of complainant being FIR registered as Case Crime No. 142 of 2008 under Sections 447, 467, 468 and 420 IPC at Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur. It was also stated that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sitapur had issue notice dated 25^th January, 2008 to the school on the same issue. Against the said notice, Writ Petition No. 3355 (M/B) of 2008 (Saraswati Shishu Mandir v. District Magistrate, Sitapur) came to be filed by the Society on which the High Court vide order dated 19^th April 2008 stayed the proceeding with the observation that prima facie the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to initiate any enquiry and it is for the civil court or the Revenue Court to determine the genuineness of the documents of title. In view of the said order, the FIR was abuse of process of law.

3. The High Court vide impugned orders directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to take over the school and pay compensation for the land to the true owner.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants-Saraswati Shishu Mandir and the State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 2093 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2012 respectively submitted that the direction of the High Court to acquire the school was wholly uncalled for as the petition filed was only for quashing the FIR and there was no justification to take over the school itself. The dispute of title, if any, could be settled in an appropriate proceedings as already observed in the earlier order of the High Court referred to above.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant who lodged the FIR is unable to dispute the above legal proposition and is also unable to justify the impugned orders or the lodging of the FIR. We are satisfied that the orders passed by the High Court are patently erroneous and unsustainable. The impugned FIR is clear abuse of process of law.

7. Accordingly, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders and the FIR. The petition before the High Court will stand disposed of.

8. The dispute, if any, between the parties over the title of the school property being run can be gone into by concerned civil or revenue court as already directed by the High Court.

———