High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 31st October, 2023 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Budhana, District- Muzaffarnagar and the order dated 30th April, 2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Revision No. 372 of 2023, through which order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 31st October, 2023 has been put under challenge at the behest of the petitioner.

3. According to the petitioner, late Tejvir Singh was his real brother. Since he was involved in criminal activities, late Hukum Singh father of the petitioner excluded him from his share by executing a will in favour of the petitioner and his wife (mother of the petitioner Smt. Jagani Devi) on 21st February, 1987, as per which half of the share was in the name of the petitioner and other half was in the name of Smt. Jagani. Late Tejvir and his family used to live in the share (house) of his mother Smt. Jagani Devi. Due to aforesaid will, late Tejvir Singh was inimical to the petitioner. After the death of the mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Jagani Devi, late Tejvir prepared a forged unregistered will in favour of his wife, namely, Shimla on 28th October, 1998 qua the share owned by his mother and on the basis of said unregistered will, name of his wife i.e. Shimla was also recorded in the revenue records along with the petitioner.

4. Tejveer, his wife and his sons, namely, Sonu and Vikash are quarrelsome and domineering people. On 20th July, 2021, Tejveer, his wife and sons had thrown the petitioner and his family out of the house by fighting, using force and threatening to kill. In the said house, gold and silver of the wife of the petitioner and other valuable items were kept. They forcibly occupied the said house. Since then, due to fear, the petitioner has been living in a rented house in Kasba Shahpur along with his family. When the petitioner went to his house several times to stay and take the belongings, they prevented him from entering into the house by abusing and beating him.

5. Qua the said property, several litigation were pending between the petitioner and Tejvir Singh upto the High Court also in Writ-B No. 29109 of 2011 (Smt. Shimla Vs. D.D.C. & Others).

6. It is also the case of the petitioner that in collusion of Tejvir, local police submitted a false report before the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and on the basis of which, case under Section 151/107/116 bearing Case No. 1493 of 2022 has been registered against the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate inturn directed the petitioner to deposit the bond and surety of Rs. 2 lakhs. Thereafter, Tejvir Singh irritated the petitioner and in his collusion, the local police submitted report against the petitioner under Section 122 (1) b Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and proceedings under Section 122 (1) b Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. When the petitioner came to know about the same, he filed an afÏdavit in the said case stating therein that no such incident or dispute arose between him and Tejvir as mentioned in the police report. It is also stated on behalf of the petitioner that on a road accident his brother Tejvir died but the son of Tejvir falsely implicated the petitioner by lodging first information report, which was registered as Case Crime No. 130 of 2023 under Sections 147, 323 and 302 I.P.C. in which he was granted bail from this Court.

7. Further it is the case of the petitioner that another case under Section 122 Cr.P.C. was registered against the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the basis of false police report in which he filed his objection but ignoring the objection of petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 31st October, 2023 directed the petitioner to deposit bond and surety of Rs.1 lakh. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 372 of 2023. However the Sessions Judge, without considering the facts, has illegally dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner vide order dated 30th April, 2024.

8. On the above premise, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police has illegally reported that there is apprehension of breach of peace due to dispute arose between the petitioner and late Tejvir and now his family qua the possession over the house in question and on the basis of such false report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed order against the petitioner dated 31st October, 2023, which is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and improper in the eyes of law. The revisional court has also committed illegality in upholding the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in dismissing the criminal revision filed filed the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

9. On the other-hand, learned A.G.A. submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the revisional court. From the notices issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which are on record, it is apparent that the petitioner is habitual in breaching the peace in the society and also breaching the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while accepting the surety and bond submitted by the petitioner. Such habitual person like the petitioner, who takes the law on his own hand, is not entitled to any relief from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present petition.

11. From the records it is cropped up that due to dispute arose between the petitioner and his late brother Tejvir and his family regarding demarcation of house, a notice under Section 122 (1) b of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar on 28th December, 2022 calling upon him to appear before him 6th January, 2023 for explaining as to why for maintaining the peace and breaching of condition mentioned in the bond given by the petitioner earlier, the amount of surety may not be forfeited and he may not be kept in custody in district jail till the expiry of the bond period. In the said notice it has also been mentioned that on 25th December, 2022, Station House OfÏcer, Shahpur submitted a report under Section 122-B Cr.P.C. stating therein that on 11th September, 2022 proceedings under Sections 151/107/116 were initiated against the petitioner regarding the demarcation of house, whereafter the petitioner submitted a bond and surety of Rs. 2 lakhs in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the same was accepted with the condition that if he does not comply with the order action under Section 122-B Cr.P.C. will be taken against him. In the report it has also been stated that he did not comply with the order and on the apprehension of breach of peace, the Station House OfÏcer apprehended the petitioner under Sections 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. and produced him before the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He recommended that the amount of bond of Rs. 2 lakhs as deposited by the petitioner may be confiscated in favour of the State Government.

12. After calling objection from the petitioner as well as reply from the police and on receiving the same, and also after perusal of the law on the subject, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 31st October, 2023 in Case No. 16 of 2022 rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner and also confiscating the amount of bond of Rs. 1 lakh in favour of the State Government for which he has been directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 1 lakh in the form of chalan within a week from the date of the said order, failing which the same shall be recovered from his arrears of land revenue.

13. From the perusal of the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate dated 31st October, 2023, this Court finds that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has recorded categorical finding of facts that due dispute arose between the first party i.e. petitioner and second party i.e. Tejvir qua division of house in question, there was apprehension of breach of peace in the society so that the police has submitted its challani report dated 11th September, 2022 and on the basis of the same, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate registered case no. 1493 of 2022 (State VS. Sukhpal & Others) and notices were also issued under Section 111 Cr.P.C. to the first and second parties. In the said case, on 11th September, 2022 the petitioner submitted the bond and surety of Rs. 2 lakhs on which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to maintain peace banned the petitioner under section 116 (3) Cr.P.C. not to repeat the said act and on 16th November, 2022, the petitioner was finally banned under Section 117 Cr.P.C. for a period of six months mentioned in the notice. However, the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of surety during the banned period due to which a report was submitted by the Police under Section 122 Cr.P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has also recorded that the dispute arose between the petitioner and his brother Tejvir qua ancestral property is pending before the High Court and on 22nd December, 2022 due to the said dispute, the petitioner violated the terms and condition of the surety and it was also found that on 22nd April,2023 he killed his brother Tejvir by climbing tractor upon him. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate referring Section 120 Cr.P.C. has found that the petitioner has breached the terms and condition of the surety. On the basis of above categorical finding, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has rejected the objection of the petitioner while passing the impugned order. The revisional court has also not found any illegality in the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate while dismissing the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

14. On deeper scrutiny of both the impugned orders and specific finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while passing the impugned order as well as on perusal of the record of the instant petition, this Court finds that the petitioner is habitual in breaching the peace and also breaching the terms and condition of surety. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that both the impugned orders do not warrant any interference by this Court while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

15. The present petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

16. There shall be no orders as to costs. (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Sushil/- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 31st October, 2023 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Budhana, District- Muzaffarnagar and the order dated 30th April, 2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Revision No. 372 of 2023, through which order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 31st October, 2023 has been put under challenge at the behest of the petitioner.

3. According to the petitioner, late Tejvir Singh was his real brother. Since he was involved in criminal activities, late Hukum Singh father of the petitioner excluded him from his share by executing a will in favour of the petitioner and his wife (mother of the petitioner Smt. Jagani Devi) on 21st February, 1987, as per which half of the share was in the name of the petitioner and other half was in the name of Smt. Jagani. Late Tejvir and his family used to live in the share (house) of his mother Smt. Jagani Devi. Due to aforesaid will, late Tejvir Singh was inimical to the petitioner. After the death of the mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Jagani Devi, late Tejvir prepared a forged unregistered will in favour of his wife, namely, Shimla on 28th October, 1998 qua the share owned by his mother and on the basis of said unregistered will, name of his wife i.e. Shimla was also recorded in the revenue records along with the petitioner.

4. Tejveer, his wife and his sons, namely, Sonu and Vikash are quarrelsome and domineering people. On 20th July, 2021, Tejveer, his wife and sons had thrown the petitioner and his family out of the house by fighting, using force and threatening to kill. In the said house, gold and silver of the wife of the petitioner and other valuable items were kept. They forcibly occupied the said house. Since then, due to fear, the petitioner has been living in a rented house in Kasba Shahpur along with his family. When the petitioner went to his house several times to stay and take the belongings, they prevented him from entering into the house by abusing and beating him.

5. Qua the said property, several litigation were pending between the petitioner and Tejvir Singh upto the High Court also in Writ-B No. 29109 of 2011 (Smt. Shimla Vs. D.D.C. & Others).

6. It is also the case of the petitioner that in collusion of Tejvir, local police submitted a false report before the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and on the basis of which, case under Section 151/107/116 bearing Case No. 1493 of 2022 has been registered against the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate inturn directed the petitioner to deposit the bond and surety of Rs. 2 lakhs. Thereafter, Tejvir Singh irritated the petitioner and in his collusion, the local police submitted report against the petitioner under Section 122 (1) b Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and proceedings under Section 122 (1) b Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. When the petitioner came to know about the same, he filed an afÏdavit in the said case stating therein that no such incident or dispute arose between him and Tejvir as mentioned in the police report. It is also stated on behalf of the petitioner that on a road accident his brother Tejvir died but the son of Tejvir falsely implicated the petitioner by lodging first information report, which was registered as Case Crime No. 130 of 2023 under Sections 147, 323 and 302 I.P.C. in which he was granted bail from this Court.

7. Further it is the case of the petitioner that another case under Section 122 Cr.P.C. was registered against the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the basis of false police report in which he filed his objection but ignoring the objection of petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 31st October, 2023 directed the petitioner to deposit bond and surety of Rs.1 lakh. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 372 of 2023. However the Sessions Judge, without considering the facts, has illegally dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner vide order dated 30th April, 2024.

8. On the above premise, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police has illegally reported that there is apprehension of breach of peace due to dispute arose between the petitioner and late Tejvir and now his family qua the possession over the house in question and on the basis of such false report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed order against the petitioner dated 31st October, 2023, which is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and improper in the eyes of law. The revisional court has also committed illegality in upholding the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in dismissing the criminal revision filed filed the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

9. On the other-hand, learned A.G.A. submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the revisional court. From the notices issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which are on record, it is apparent that the petitioner is habitual in breaching the peace in the society and also breaching the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while accepting the surety and bond submitted by the petitioner. Such habitual person like the petitioner, who takes the law on his own hand, is not entitled to any relief from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present petition.

11. From the records it is cropped up that due to dispute arose between the petitioner and his late brother Tejvir and his family regarding demarcation of house, a notice under Section 122 (1) b of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar on 28th December, 2022 calling upon him to appear before him 6th January, 2023 for explaining as to why for maintaining the peace and breaching of condition mentioned in the bond given by the petitioner earlier, the amount of surety may not be forfeited and he may not be kept in custody in district jail till the expiry of the bond period. In the said notice it has also been mentioned that on 25th December, 2022, Station House OfÏcer, Shahpur submitted a report under Section 122-B Cr.P.C. stating therein that on 11th September, 2022 proceedings under Sections 151/107/116 were initiated against the petitioner regarding the demarcation of house, whereafter the petitioner submitted a bond and surety of Rs. 2 lakhs in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the same was accepted with the condition that if he does not comply with the order action under Section 122-B Cr.P.C. will be taken against him. In the report it has also been stated that he did not comply with the order and on the apprehension of breach of peace, the Station House OfÏcer apprehended the petitioner under Sections 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. and produced him before the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He recommended that the amount of bond of Rs. 2 lakhs as deposited by the petitioner may be confiscated in favour of the State Government.

12. After calling objection from the petitioner as well as reply from the police and on receiving the same, and also after perusal of the law on the subject, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 31st October, 2023 in Case No. 16 of 2022 rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner and also confiscating the amount of bond of Rs. 1 lakh in favour of the State Government for which he has been directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 1 lakh in the form of chalan within a week from the date of the said order, failing which the same shall be recovered from his arrears of land revenue.

13. From the perusal of the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate dated 31st October, 2023, this Court finds that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has recorded categorical finding of facts that due dispute arose between the first party i.e. petitioner and second party i.e. Tejvir qua division of house in question, there was apprehension of breach of peace in the society so that the police has submitted its challani report dated 11th September, 2022 and on the basis of the same, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate registered case no. 1493 of 2022 (State VS. Sukhpal & Others) and notices were also issued under Section 111 Cr.P.C. to the first and second parties. In the said case, on 11th September, 2022 the petitioner submitted the bond and surety of Rs. 2 lakhs on which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to maintain peace banned the petitioner under section 116 (3) Cr.P.C. not to repeat the said act and on 16th November, 2022, the petitioner was finally banned under Section 117 Cr.P.C. for a period of six months mentioned in the notice. However, the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of surety during the banned period due to which a report was submitted by the Police under Section 122 Cr.P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has also recorded that the dispute arose between the petitioner and his brother Tejvir qua ancestral property is pending before the High Court and on 22nd December, 2022 due to the said dispute, the petitioner violated the terms and condition of the surety and it was also found that on 22nd April,2023 he killed his brother Tejvir by climbing tractor upon him. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate referring Section 120 Cr.P.C. has found that the petitioner has breached the terms and condition of the surety. On the basis of above categorical finding, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has rejected the objection of the petitioner while passing the impugned order. The revisional court has also not found any illegality in the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate while dismissing the criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

14. On deeper scrutiny of both the impugned orders and specific finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while passing the impugned order as well as on perusal of the record of the instant petition, this Court finds that the petitioner is habitual in breaching the peace and also breaching the terms and condition of surety. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that both the impugned orders do not warrant any interference by this Court while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

15. The present petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

16. There shall be no orders as to costs. (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Sushil/- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad