Rajendra Nath Tiwari v. Renu Mishra, under Sections

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 16.11.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2024; Rajendra Nath Tiwari Versus Renu Mishra, under Sections 438 and 440 of B. N. S. S., P. S.-Bilhaur, district-Kanpur Nagar by which criminal revision filed against the order dated 2.7.2024 passed by Special Executive Magistrate, Central Zone Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 01 of 2024, under Section 145 Cr. P. C., whereby proceedings initiated against respondent no. 2 under Section 145 (1) CrPC has been closed.

3. The facts leading to filing of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as emerges from the pleadings of the parties, are that on 1.1.2024 Inspector Incharge, P. S.-Bilhaur, district-Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar has submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West, Kanpur Nagar stating that, a dispute arose between petitioners and respondent no. 2 with regard to taking / maintaining possession over the shops, which is going on and for the sake of maintaining peace, proceedings under Sections 151, 107, 116 of CrPC have been undertaken against both the parties and due to the said dispute, respondent no. 2 had lodged an F. I. R. against petitioners, as Case Crime No. 357 of 2023, under Sections-147, 323, 506 IPC. In the said report, it was requested, that the shops in question may 2 A227 No. 3852 of 2025 be auctioned.

4. Being satisfied with the said report dated 1.1.2024, Court of Special Executive Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 16.1.2024 issued notice under Section 145 (1) CrPC directing both the parties to file their submissions / adducing evidence. Upon which, petitioners filed objections, stating therein that the report dated 1.1.2024 was got forwarded by the respondent no. 2 in connivance with the Inspector Incharge of P. S.-Bilhaur, district-Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar, with the intention to grab the shops in question. In the objection, it is averred that, there is no dispute with regard to the possession over the shops; the shops over which, respondent no. 2 Smt. Renu Mishra is claiming possession, is under the ownership of mother of petitioners, namely, Smt. Shanti Devi and, are part of House No. 50, whereas the shops belonging to respondent no. 2 Renu Mishra are under the ownership of her father Rajendra Kumar and are part of House No. 51. Prior to this, Rajendra Kumar, father of respondent no. 2, who had earlier launched proceedings under Section 145 CrPC before S. D. M., Bilhaur, Kanpur Nagar, which was registered as Cse No. 4/2015/2017; Rajendra Kumar Versus Rajendra Nath, was decided on merits vide order dated

7.9.2017. Thereafter the police got auctioned three shops of petitioners without any order by the Court. Thereafter respondent no. 2 Renu Mishra has got instituted present case in connivance with the police, which is not maintainable. On 30.9.2023, respondents sabotaged in the chamber of petitioner no. 3 and tried to take possession, written compliant of which, was lodged at P. S.-Bilhaur, Kanpur Nagar, but that was unactioned and on the contrary, petitioners were arraigned as accused in Case Crime No. 357 of 2023, under Sections-147, 323, 506 IPC.

5. Against the objections filed by petitioners, respondent no. 2 filed objection dated 12.3.2024, stating that the averments made by petitioners are founded on false, concocted and baseless facts. In her objection, respondent no. 2 has stated that due to brain hemorrhage, her father Rajendra Kumar, who is the owner of the shops in question, is residing at Kanpur Nagar with her since 2018 and on 29.9.2023, at about 9.30 PM, petitioners have broken lock of the shops under the ownership of her father Rajendra Kumar, which was reported to the police at Dial 112 and when she reached the shops for 3 A227 No. 3852 of 2025 putting lock, petitioners attacked respondent no. 2, resultantly, she sustained injuries. Police reached the spot and got the shops locked. Thereafter petitioners again attacked respondent no. 2, on which police got registered a case against the petitioners and sent them to jail. A case between her father and his tenants was decided by the Civil Court in favour of her father.

6. This revision before the learned Sessions Judge has been filed on the ground that the order dated 2.7.2024 passed by Special Executive Magistrate, Central Zone Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 01 of 2024, under Section 145 Cr. P. C. is against the facts and law. The police report dated 16.4.2015 and 25.12.2023 are totally forged. The owner of shops in question is Smt. Shanti Devi, but her name is not mentioned anywhere in the report, which is suggestive of that the police of police station benefited Renu Mishra by launching forged proceedings.

7. Revisional Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. Thus, the present petition.

8. In the present petition, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the father of opposite party no. 2 instituted the same complaint before the Executive Magistrate and the Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground, that the owner of the shop in question was the mother of the petitioners, wherein the mother namely, Shanti Devi was not arrayed as necessary party, therefore, the complaint was dismissed on this ground alone. It is the contention of the petitioner that thereafter the daughter of opposite party no. 2 instituted the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC before the Executive Magistrate / Dy. Commissioner of Police and arrayed the petitioners as necessary party and again the mother of the petitioners was not arrayed as necessary party but on instigation of daughter of earlier petitioner i. e. Rajendra Kumar, the present proceedings have been instituted and the Executive Magistrate passed the orders against them.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the practice and procedure, the mother ought to have been made a party, in the second round of litigation by opposite party no. 2, hence if the Executive Magistrate has dismissed the earlier complaint on the ground, that the owner of the shops, i. e. the mother of the petitioners was not arrayed as necessary party and further argued that Executive Magistrate has taken a contrary view in respect 4 A227 No. 3852 of 2025 of the complaints instituted under Section 145 CrPC and the said aspect of not arraying the mother, as necessary party on both the occasions, was also not looked into by the revisional Court and dismissed the criminal revision, hence the order of the revisional Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

10. Under the circumstances and the facts as stated in the foregoing paras, the order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2024; Rajendra Nath Tiwari Versus Renu Mishra is quashed and the matter is remitted back to revisional authority to decide the revision afresh by taking into consideration the facts whether the mother of the petitioners ought to have been made necessary party.

11. The petition is disposed of accordingly. September 12, 2025 HR (Harvir Singh,J.) HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 16.11.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2024; Rajendra Nath Tiwari Versus Renu Mishra, under Sections 438 and 440 of B. N. S. S., P. S.-Bilhaur, district-Kanpur Nagar by which criminal revision filed against the order dated 2.7.2024 passed by Special Executive Magistrate, Central Zone Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 01 of 2024, under Section 145 Cr. P. C., whereby proceedings initiated against respondent no. 2 under Section 145 (1) CrPC has been closed.

3. The facts leading to filing of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as emerges from the pleadings of the parties, are that on 1.1.2024 Inspector Incharge, P. S.-Bilhaur, district-Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar has submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West, Kanpur Nagar stating that, a dispute arose between petitioners and respondent no. 2 with regard to taking / maintaining possession over the shops, which is going on and for the sake of maintaining peace, proceedings under Sections 151, 107, 116 of CrPC have been undertaken against both the parties and due to the said dispute, respondent no. 2 had lodged an F. I. R. against petitioners, as Case Crime No. 357 of 2023, under Sections-147, 323, 506 IPC. In the said report, it was requested, that the shops in question may 2 A227 No. 3852 of 2025 be auctioned.

4. Being satisfied with the said report dated 1.1.2024, Court of Special Executive Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 16.1.2024 issued notice under Section 145 (1) CrPC directing both the parties to file their submissions / adducing evidence. Upon which, petitioners filed objections, stating therein that the report dated 1.1.2024 was got forwarded by the respondent no. 2 in connivance with the Inspector Incharge of P. S.-Bilhaur, district-Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar, with the intention to grab the shops in question. In the objection, it is averred that, there is no dispute with regard to the possession over the shops; the shops over which, respondent no. 2 Smt. Renu Mishra is claiming possession, is under the ownership of mother of petitioners, namely, Smt. Shanti Devi and, are part of House No. 50, whereas the shops belonging to respondent no. 2 Renu Mishra are under the ownership of her father Rajendra Kumar and are part of House No. 51. Prior to this, Rajendra Kumar, father of respondent no. 2, who had earlier launched proceedings under Section 145 CrPC before S. D. M., Bilhaur, Kanpur Nagar, which was registered as Cse No. 4/2015/2017; Rajendra Kumar Versus Rajendra Nath, was decided on merits vide order dated

7.9.2017. Thereafter the police got auctioned three shops of petitioners without any order by the Court. Thereafter respondent no. 2 Renu Mishra has got instituted present case in connivance with the police, which is not maintainable. On 30.9.2023, respondents sabotaged in the chamber of petitioner no. 3 and tried to take possession, written compliant of which, was lodged at P. S.-Bilhaur, Kanpur Nagar, but that was unactioned and on the contrary, petitioners were arraigned as accused in Case Crime No. 357 of 2023, under Sections-147, 323, 506 IPC.

5. Against the objections filed by petitioners, respondent no. 2 filed objection dated 12.3.2024, stating that the averments made by petitioners are founded on false, concocted and baseless facts. In her objection, respondent no. 2 has stated that due to brain hemorrhage, her father Rajendra Kumar, who is the owner of the shops in question, is residing at Kanpur Nagar with her since 2018 and on 29.9.2023, at about 9.30 PM, petitioners have broken lock of the shops under the ownership of her father Rajendra Kumar, which was reported to the police at Dial 112 and when she reached the shops for 3 A227 No. 3852 of 2025 putting lock, petitioners attacked respondent no. 2, resultantly, she sustained injuries. Police reached the spot and got the shops locked. Thereafter petitioners again attacked respondent no. 2, on which police got registered a case against the petitioners and sent them to jail. A case between her father and his tenants was decided by the Civil Court in favour of her father.

6. This revision before the learned Sessions Judge has been filed on the ground that the order dated 2.7.2024 passed by Special Executive Magistrate, Central Zone Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 01 of 2024, under Section 145 Cr. P. C. is against the facts and law. The police report dated 16.4.2015 and 25.12.2023 are totally forged. The owner of shops in question is Smt. Shanti Devi, but her name is not mentioned anywhere in the report, which is suggestive of that the police of police station benefited Renu Mishra by launching forged proceedings.

7. Revisional Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. Thus, the present petition.

8. In the present petition, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the father of opposite party no. 2 instituted the same complaint before the Executive Magistrate and the Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground, that the owner of the shop in question was the mother of the petitioners, wherein the mother namely, Shanti Devi was not arrayed as necessary party, therefore, the complaint was dismissed on this ground alone. It is the contention of the petitioner that thereafter the daughter of opposite party no. 2 instituted the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC before the Executive Magistrate / Dy. Commissioner of Police and arrayed the petitioners as necessary party and again the mother of the petitioners was not arrayed as necessary party but on instigation of daughter of earlier petitioner i. e. Rajendra Kumar, the present proceedings have been instituted and the Executive Magistrate passed the orders against them.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the practice and procedure, the mother ought to have been made a party, in the second round of litigation by opposite party no. 2, hence if the Executive Magistrate has dismissed the earlier complaint on the ground, that the owner of the shops, i. e. the mother of the petitioners was not arrayed as necessary party and further argued that Executive Magistrate has taken a contrary view in respect 4 A227 No. 3852 of 2025 of the complaints instituted under Section 145 CrPC and the said aspect of not arraying the mother, as necessary party on both the occasions, was also not looked into by the revisional Court and dismissed the criminal revision, hence the order of the revisional Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

10. Under the circumstances and the facts as stated in the foregoing paras, the order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2024; Rajendra Nath Tiwari Versus Renu Mishra is quashed and the matter is remitted back to revisional authority to decide the revision afresh by taking into consideration the facts whether the mother of the petitioners ought to have been made necessary party.

11. The petition is disposed of accordingly. September 12, 2025 HR (Harvir Singh,J.) HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad