Shravan Kumar & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 145, 145(1)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 39 rr. 1, 2
Judgment
Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present applicant has been filed by the applicant with prayer to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 6.6.2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ikauna, Shravasti in Case No. 4351 of 2021 (Shravan Kumar Vs. Chandramani Tiwari) in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, an order was passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 6.6.2025 by which attachment order of property dated 01.10.2021 and notice under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. dated 18.9.2021 has been withdrawn and Station Officer has been directed to comply the order dated 24.5.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shravasti in Original Suit No.
198 of 2021. Further submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed the order illegally and the opposite party is not in possession of the property even though learned Civil Judge passed the order in his favour therefore, property be not handed over to the opposite party and the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 6.6.2025 be quashed. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that regarding the same property a Civil Suit No. 198 of 2021 has been filed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shravasti in which an application 6-C under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was also filed which was allowed by the learned court in favour of opposite party and the applicant was prohibited to make any interference in the peaceful possession of the opposite party. After passing of this order learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has withdrawn the order of attachment and preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. There is no any illegality in the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, since civil suit regarding the same is pending before the competent court, therefore, Sub- Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass any order regarding possession of the same property.
Operative part
On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A. perusal of order passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Original Suit No. 198 of 2021 on 6-C under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. granting injunction in favour of opposite party, it appears that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has withdrawn the order of attachment and notice under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. after aforesaid order passed by learned Civil Judge. There is no any error or illegality in the order passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in withdrawing the order of attachment and notice under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. but this application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. The parties may lead their case regarding their respective rights before the learned Civil Judge where suit is pending regarding the same property. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. Order Date :- 26.6.2025 Anurag Singh
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the present application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 145, 145(1); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 39 rr. 1, 2.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 26 Jun 2025. The bench was SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.