Gyanendra Dutt v. State of U.P. and Others) and the same has been allowed, through which order
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:170873 Court No. - 85 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7816 of 2024 Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Mittal And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aklank Kumar Jain Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Aklank Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for challenging the order dated 04.06.2024 passed by learned court of Sessions Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Revision No.263 of 2023 (Gyanendra Dutt vs. State of U.P. and Others) and the same has been allowed, through which order dated 30.10.2023 passed by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad has been set-aside. 3. It is the case of petitioners that initially respondent no.2 filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad being Misc. Case No.925 of 2018 against the petitioners with the allegations that petitioners have entered into an agreement with the respondent no.2 with regard to sale of flat at the amount of Rs.26 lakh, out of which Rs.20 lakh has been received by petitioners through various medium and it has been assured that the remaining amount shall be paid at the time of execution of sale deed in which petitioners have played fraud with the respondent no.2; thereafter learned court concerned considered the same and treated the above application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint case being Complaint Case No.1936 of 2018 (Gyanendra Dutt vs. Satish Chandra Mittal and Another) and directed the respondent no.2 to record statements under section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., wherein learned court concerned in the most mechanical manner summoned the petitioners in pursuance to section 420 I.P.C. vide order dated 10.02.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by respondent no.2, petitioners approached before civil court for permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent no.2 and preferred an Original Suit No.100 of 2018 on dated 26.04.2018, as well as being aggrieved with the order dated 10.02.2021, petitioners approached before this Court by way of preferring Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.137 of 2022 (Satish Chandra Mittal and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another) challenging the summoning order dated 10.02.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1936 of 2018, wherein co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.08.2022 stayed the proceedings of above-mentioned complaint case subject to deposition of amount; thereafter the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.137 of 2022 has been heard on merit and the same has been allowed vide order dated 15.11.2022 and the matter has been remanded back to learned court concerned to pass fresh order with certain observation; thereafter in pursuance to order dated 15.11.2022 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad rejected the complaint preferred at the behest of respondent no.2 vide order dated 30.10.2023. 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 30.10.2023, respondent no.2 preferred criminal revision being Criminal Revision No.263 of 2023 (Gyanendra Dutt vs. State of U.P. and Others) before learned Session Judge, Firozabad and the same has been allowed by learned revisional court, setting-aside the order dated 30.10.2023 considering the disputed question of facts, vide order dated 04.06.2024, which impugned the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though there was patent illegality in the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad dated 30.10.2023, but the learned revisional court has exercised its revisional jurisdiction beyond its limit, by bare perusal of order dated 04.06.2024, it is crystal clear that the case of petitioners has not been discussed and passed the impugned order by mentioning the grounds of revision, which are based on facts of the case. It is also submitted learned counsel for petitioners that the dispute between the parties is with regard to commercial transaction and the remedy is available before competent civil court by instituting the suit for specific performance of contract, at the same time learned revisional court has not considered that the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, which is also subjudice before learned civil court, Firozabad and the same is at very advance stage of its adjudication since 26.04.2018. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioners while assailing impugned order that learned revisional court has mentioned incorrect fact even in the impugned order dated 04.06.2024 since the petitioners have already supplied the copy of registered sale deed, so the fact cannot be admitted that the petitioners have committed forgery to respondent no.2 and on the other hand respondent no.2 have tried to take possession of the flat even without paying the entire agreed amount as per the agreement. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for petitioners by way of supporting the order dated 04.06.2024 passed by learned Session Judge, Firozabad in Criminal Revision No.263 of 2023 (Gyanendra Dutt vs. State of U.P. and Others) and also submitted that in crux order which impugned the present petition is only for re-deciding the matter afresh by learned court concerned. 8. After having rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and by bare perusal of order, which impugned the present petition, it is crystal clear that while adjudicating the controversy as raised by respondent no.2 through Criminal Revision No.263 of 2023 certain factual aspects have been considered by learned revisional court, whereas it is a trite law that while exercising revisional jurisdiction, concerned court cannot enter into re-appreciation of facts, rather the outcome of revision must be dependent upon only two things, i.e., perversity and illegality, if involved in the order impugned over which the learned revisional court is exercising jurisdiction as a revisional court, at the same time while passing order dated 04.06.2024 learned revisional court declared the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad as illegal, but at the same time directed to decide afresh by way of remitting back the matter to decide fresh in the light of observation made while passing order dated 04.06.2024. 9. In the light of observation as made above, order dated 04.06.2024 is hereby modified only to the extent that the outcome of direction in shape of order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad shall not be only dependent upon the observation as made vide order dated 04.06.2024 by way of limitizing the scope of re-hearing of the matter, but the same shall be dependent upon free set of judicial consciousness of learned court concerned.
Decision
10. The instant petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 24.10.2024 Saif