✦ High Court of India · 02 Dec 2025

Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Court No

Case Details High Court of India · 02 Dec 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

02 Dec 2025

Bench

SAURABH LAVANIA

Length

4,454 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §340 Code of Criminal Procedure §397 Code of Criminal Procedure §537 Code of Criminal Procedure Constitution of India Limitation Act 1963 Payment of Wages Act 1936

Cited in this judgment

1. Heard Sri Deo Raj Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat and perused the records.

2. The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by learned additional sessions judge court no. 1 Lakhimpur Kheri in criminal revision no. 03/2025 Kaushal Kishor Verma Vs. State of U.P. and another as contained in Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition in the interest of justice."

3. By means of the petition(s) under consideration, the petitioners namely Arun Kumar Tiwari and Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari have assailed the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Lakhimpur Kheri (in short 'Revisional Court') in Criminal Revision No.03/2025 (Kaushal Kishor Verma Versus State of U.P. and Others). The relevant portion of impugned order dated 04.02.2025 is extracted hereinunder:- "8. उभयप(cid:87)(cid:523) के िव(cid:497)ान अिधव(cid:472)ा के तक(cid:524) को सुना तथा तलबशुदा प(cid:347)ावली व िनगरानी प(cid:347)ावली का स(cid:286)यक् पिरशीलन िकया।

9. वत(cid:259)मान िनगरानी म(cid:517) मु(cid:263)य (cid:628)प से िवचारणीय (cid:352)(cid:291)न यह है िक (cid:262)या िवचारण (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा िदनांक 01-04-2024 2 CRLP No. 2295 of 2025 को आदेश पािरत करते समय कोई अिनयिमतता अथवा िविधक (cid:347)ुिट की गयी है।

10. प(cid:347)ावली के अवलोकन से िविदत है िक (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत (cid:352)करण म(cid:517) िनगरानीकता(cid:259) (cid:497)ारा अपनी िनगरानी के मा(cid:280)यम से िव(cid:497)ान अितिर(cid:472) मिज० (cid:497)ारा पािरत आदेश िदनांक 01.04.24 िनर(cid:293)त करने की याचना की गयी है। उ(cid:472) आदेश की स(cid:277)य(cid:352)ित प(cid:347)ावली पर दािखल है। िजसके अवलोकन से (cid:293)प(cid:504) है िक िजस (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) िदनांिकत 07.09.22 को उ(cid:472) आदेश (cid:497)ारा िनर(cid:293)त िकया गया है उसकी स(cid:277)य(cid:352)ित ४ख के (cid:628)प म(cid:517) प(cid:347)ावली पर दािखल है िजसम(cid:517) अनुतोष मे यह मांग की गयी थी िक िवप(cid:87)ी कौशल िकशोर वमा(cid:259) को (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) झूठा सा(cid:296)य (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत करने के िलये भारतीय दंड संिहता की धारा 191, 193 के तहत दंिडत करने की कृ पा कर(cid:517)। उस (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) पर िव(cid:497)ान अितिर(cid:472) मिज० (cid:497)ारा आदेश िदनांक 01.04.2024 को ंिक (cid:352)करण म(cid:517) पूव(cid:259) म(cid:517) इस (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा बाजदायर पािरत िकया गया और िववेचन म(cid:517) यह पाया िक चू (cid:293)वीकार िकया जा चुका है अतः सी०आर०पी०सी० की धारा-340 की पुि(cid:504) नही होती है और यह (cid:293)प(cid:504) उ(cid:289)लेख िकया िक (cid:352)ाथ(cid:515)/वादी अ(cid:628)ण कु मार ितवारी (cid:497)ारा िदये गये (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) िदनांक 07.09.2022 के स(cid:286)ब(cid:281)ध म(cid:517) प(cid:347)ावली के परी(cid:87)णोपरा(cid:281)त (cid:352)ितवादी पर दं०(cid:352)०सं० की धारा 340 के अ(cid:281)तग(cid:259)त लगाये गये ंिक िजस (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) िदनांक 07.09.2022 पर यह आदेश पािरत िकया गया आरोप पु(cid:504) नह(cid:514) होते है। चू है जो प(cid:347)ावली पर 8ख के (cid:628)प म(cid:517) (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत है िजसम(cid:517) मा(cid:347) यह अनुतोष चाहा गया था िक िवप(cid:87)ी कौशल िकशोर वमा(cid:259) ने (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) झूठा सा(cid:296)य (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत करने के िलये भा०दं०सं० की धारा 191,193 के तहत दि(cid:276)डत िकया जाये। अथा(cid:259)त जो अनुतोष (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) म(cid:517) मांगा गया था उसी के स(cid:281)दभ(cid:259) म(cid:517) आदेश पािरत िकया जाना चािहये था िक(cid:281)तु िव(cid:497)ान अितिर(cid:472) मिज० (cid:497)ारा उ(cid:472) (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) िदनांक 07.09.22 के आधार पया(cid:259)(cid:282)त नही होने के कारण िनर(cid:293)त िकया गया है। उ(cid:472) आदेश म(cid:517) यह त(cid:278)य अंिकत िकया गया है िक" उपयुत िववेचना के आधार पर िदनांक 29.02.2016 को पािरत िकया गया आदेश यथावत् रखते (cid:631)ए (cid:352)ितप(cid:87)ी (cid:352)ब(cid:281)धक कौशल िकशोर वमा(cid:259) पु(cid:347) (cid:361)ी लखपित वमा(cid:259) (cid:352)ब(cid:281)धक (cid:293)वामी िववेकान(cid:281)द उ०मा०िव० टो(cid:237)कपुर िड(cid:286)हौरा िनवासी (cid:334)ाम िड(cid:286)हौरा पो(cid:293)ट मुि(cid:237)याखे(cid:237)ा थाना व खीरी को पुनः आदेश िदया जाता है िक (cid:352)ाथ(cid:515) अ(cid:628)ण कु मार ितवारी व संजीव कु मार ितवारी के बकाया वेतन भुगतान मु० 2,49,000/ (cid:628)पये आदेश पािरत होने के 15 िदन के अ(cid:281)दर अदा करे अ(cid:281)यथा की ि(cid:293)थित म(cid:517) वसूली भू-राज(cid:293)व की भांित कराई जायेगी।" जो (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) म(cid:517) मांगे गये अनुतोष के अितिर(cid:472) (cid:293)वंय ही िकया गया है जो दिशत करता है िक िव(cid:497)ान िवचारण (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा (cid:87)े(cid:347)ािधकार से परे जाकर आदेश पािरत िकया गया है। इस स(cid:281)दभ(cid:259) म(cid:517) िनगरानीकता(cid:259) (cid:497)ारा आदेश िदनांक 29.02.16 की स(cid:277)य(cid:352)ित कागज सं(cid:263)या 10ख दािखल की गयी है िजसका ि(cid:332)या(cid:281)वयन करने हेतु उ(cid:472) आदेश पािरत िकया गया है।

11. कागज सं(cid:263)या-11ख के अवलोकन से (cid:293)प(cid:504) है िक िव(cid:497)ान अितिर(cid:472) अिधकारी खीरी (cid:497)ारा पािरत आदेश िदनांक 09.12.16 (cid:497)ारा आदेश िदनांिकत 29.02.2016 को िनर(cid:293)त िकया गया है। इस (cid:352)कार कागज सं(cid:263)या-12ख के अवलोकन से (cid:293)प(cid:504) है िक आदेश िदनांिकत 03.05.2017 (cid:497)ारा आवेदक अ(cid:628)ण कु मार आिद का (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) िदनांिकत 07.08.2012 िनर(cid:293)त िकया गया है। प(cid:347)ावली पर उपल(cid:284)ध कागज सं(cid:263)या 13ख से दीवानी अपील सं० 36/2017 की स(cid:277)य(cid:352)ित दािखल की गयी है िजसम(cid:517) आदेश िदनांिकत 09.12.16 को िनर(cid:293)त करते (cid:631)ये प(cid:347)ावली अधीन(cid:293)थ (cid:281)याालय को वापस इस िनद(cid:518)श के साथ भेजी गयी िक वह पुनः प(cid:87)कार(cid:523) को सुनकर, िनण(cid:259)य पािरत कर(cid:517)।

12. इस (cid:352)कार उपरो(cid:472) िववेचन से यह (cid:293)प(cid:504) है िक अपीलीय (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा पािरत आदेश िदनांिकत 11.01.18 म(cid:517) अितिर(cid:472) मिज० (cid:497)ारा पािरत आदेश िदनांिकत 09.12.16 िजसके मा(cid:280)यम से आदेश िदनांिकत 29.02.16 को िनर(cid:293)त िकया गया था, िवचाराधीन है। (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत (cid:352)करण म(cid:517) िवचारण (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा िदये गये (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) िदनांिकत 07.09.22 जो िक िवप(cid:87)ी को (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) झूठा सा(cid:296)य (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत करने के िलये दंिडत िकये जाने हेतु िदया गया था को िनर(cid:293)त करके आदेश िदनांिकत 29.02.2016 का अनुपालन िकये जाने हेतु पािरत िकया गया है। इस (cid:352)कार िवचारण (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा पािरत आदेश िदनांिकत 01.04.2024 (cid:87)े(cid:347)ािधकार से परे जाकर पािरत िकया गया है, जो िक (cid:347)ुिटपूण(cid:259) है। यहां यह भी उ(cid:289)लेखनीय है िक िवचारण (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) िदनांिकत 07.09.22 िनर(cid:293)त िकया गया है। जबिक िवप(cid:87)ी / (cid:352)ाथ(cid:515) (cid:497)ारा (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) िदनांक 03.09.2022 को (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत िकया गया है िजस पर िवचारण (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा िदनांक 07.09.22 को सं(cid:88)ान िलया गया है। िजस कारण िवचारण (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) िदनांिकत 07.09.22 के स(cid:286)ब(cid:281)ध म(cid:517) पािरत आदेश भी (cid:347)ुिटपूण(cid:259) है। अतः उपरो(cid:472) सं(cid:352)े(cid:87)ण के (cid:623)ि(cid:504)गत िव(cid:497)ान िवचारण (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा पािरत आलो(cid:267)य आदेश िदनांिकत 01.04.2024 अपा(cid:293)त िकये है और त(cid:279)नुसार िनगरानी (cid:293)वीकार िकये जाने यो(cid:264)य है। CRLP No. 2295 of 2025 3 आदेश

13. िनगरानीकता(cid:259) कौशल िकशोर वमा(cid:259) (cid:497)ारा (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत िनगरानी सं(cid:263)या 3/2025 (cid:293)वीकार की जाती है, तथा िव(cid:497)ान िवचारण (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा पािरत आदेश िदनांिकत 01.04.2024 अपा(cid:293)त िकया जाता है । इस िनण(cid:259)य की एक (cid:352)ित के साथ तलबशुदा मूल प(cid:347)ावली िवचारण (cid:281)यायालय को वापस भेजी जाये। िनगरानी प(cid:347)ावली वाद आव(cid:291)यक काय(cid:259)वाही दािखल द(cid:283)तर की जावे।"

4. The order dated 04.02.2025 has been challenged/impeached on the ground that as per Section 17 of Payment of Wages Act 1936, an appeal before the district court ought to have been filed and in the instant case criminal revision was filed in terms of 397 Cr.P.C. and as such the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 is unsustainable being without jurisdiction as was passed by Revisional Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

5. To cause interference in the impugned order, this Court took note of the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and also the factual aspects of the case, which in nutshell, are as under:- (i) A joint complaint/application was preferred by petitioners Arun Kumar Tiwari and Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari before the Prescribed Authority under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short 'Act of 1936'), impleading Committee of Management of Swami Vivekanand Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidhalaya, Toradkpur Dimhora, Kheri (in short 'Committee') through opposite party no.2 in both the petitions indicated above namely Kaushal Kishor Verma s/o Sri Lakhpati Verma, (ii) The aforesaid complaint/application was registered as Case No. 15/2011 (Arun Kumar Tiwari and another Versus Committee of Management of Swami Vivekanand Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidhalaya, Toradkpur Dimhora, Kheri). (iii) In the Case No. 15/2011, an order was passed by the Prescribed Authority on 29.02.2016, whereby the opposite party was directed to make payments to the petitioners. (iv) The order dated 29.02.2016 was recalled vide order dated 09.12.2016 by the Prescribed Authority. (v) Vide order dated 03.05.2017, the case of petitioners was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. the order dated 03.05.2017 (vi) Thereafter, challenging petitioners filed an appeal i.e. Appeal No. 36/2017. The Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, District- Lakhimpur Kheri (in short 'appellate authority') partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 11.01.2018 and remanded the matter back to the prescribed authority. The operative portion of order dated 11.01.2018 reads as under:- "अपीलाथ(cid:515)गण की अपील आिशक (cid:628)प से आदेश िदनांक- 3-5-2017 के बाबत (cid:293)वीकार की जाती है, आदेश िदनांक- 3-5-2017 अपा(cid:293)त िकया जाता है तथा आदेश िदनांक- 9-12-2016 के बाबत खािरज की जाती है। अधीन(cid:293)थ (cid:281)यायालय को प(cid:347)ावली इस िनद(cid:518)श के साथ वापस भेजी जाय िक वे पुनः 4 CRLP No. 2295 of 2025 प(cid:87)कार(cid:523) को सुनकर िनण(cid:259)य पािरत करे। िनण(cid:259)य की (cid:352)ित सिहत तलब सुदा प(cid:347)ावली अधीन(cid:293)थ (cid:281)यायालय को आव(cid:291)यक काय(cid:259)वाही हेतु भेजी जाय । उभय प(cid:87) अवर (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) िदनांक-10-2-2018 को उपि(cid:293)थत हो" (vii) The order dated 11.01.2018 was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 14276(M/S) of 2018 (Arun Kumar Tiwari and another Versus Additional District Judge Court No.4, Lakhimpur Kheri and others). This petition is pending consideration before this Court. (viii) During pendency of the said petition, the petitioners preferred two applications i.e. application in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C. and another application with prayer to abate the proceedings pending before the Prescribed Authority. (ix) Vide order dated 29.08.2019 Prescribed Authority abated the proceedings and rejected the application preferred by the petitioners in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The order dated 29.08.2019 reads as under:- "(cid:352)(cid:293)तुत (cid:352)करण म(cid:517) वादी/(cid:352)ाथ(cid:515) अ(cid:628)ण कु मार ितवारी पु(cid:347) सूय(cid:259) (cid:352)साद िनवासी टीचस(cid:259) कालोनी ओयल थाना व िजला खीरी (cid:497)ारा (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) िदनांिकत 24.09.2018 अ(cid:281)तग(cid:259)त धारा 340 (सी) सी०आर०पी०सी० िजसम(cid:517) कथन िकया गया िक उसका (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत दावा िकसी अ(cid:281)य (cid:352)थम (cid:361)ेणी मिज(cid:293)(cid:342)ेट के (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) (cid:293)थाना(cid:281)तिरत कर िदया जाये के स(cid:286)ब(cid:281)ध म(cid:517) सुना साथ ही वादी (cid:497)ारा (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) िदनांिकत 31.05.2018 िजसम(cid:517) कथन िकया गया िक (cid:352)करण के स(cid:286)ब(cid:281)ध म(cid:517) वाद माननीय उ(cid:267)च (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) इस (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा पािरत आदेष िदनांक 09.12.2016 व 07.03.2018 को िनर(cid:293)त कराने हेतु िरट िपटीशन नं0 14276/18 अ(cid:628)ण कु मार ितवारी एवं अ(cid:281)य बनाम ए०डी० जे० कोट(cid:259) नं04 व अ(cid:281)य लि(cid:286)बत है इस िलए (cid:281)यायालय की लि(cid:286)बत काय(cid:259)वाही समा(cid:282)त कर दी जाये, के स(cid:286)ब(cid:281)ध म(cid:517) सुना। म(cid:520)ने प(cid:347)ावली पर उपल(cid:284)ध सम(cid:293)त अिभलेख एवं अिभलेखीय सा(cid:296)य(cid:523) का भली भाँित अ(cid:280)ययन एवं अवलोकन िकया। प(cid:347)ावली पर उपल(cid:284)ध सम(cid:293)त कागजात(cid:523) के अवलोकन के उपरा(cid:281)त (cid:281)यायालय इस िन(cid:292)कष(cid:259) पर प(cid:631)ंचता है िक (cid:352)(cid:291)नगत मामले म(cid:517) माननीय उ(cid:267)च (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) वाद लि(cid:286)बत है इसिलए इस (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) लि(cid:286)बत काय(cid:259)वाही को अ(cid:334)ेतर चलाये रखने का कोई औिच(cid:277)य नह(cid:514) है। अ(cid:293)तु (cid:352)करण की लि(cid:286)बत काय(cid:259)वाही यथाि(cid:293)थित अवेट की जाती है। इसके अितिर(cid:472) जहां तक (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) अ(cid:281)तग(cid:259)त धारा 340 (सी) सी०आर०पी०सी० के तहत िकसी अ(cid:281)य (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) वाद के (cid:293)थाना(cid:281)तिरत कराने का है, के स(cid:286)ब(cid:281)ध म(cid:517) यह उ(cid:289)लेखनीय है िक इस (cid:281)यायालय के मिज(cid:293)(cid:342)ेट को (cid:352)थम (cid:361)ेणी मिज(cid:293)(cid:342)ेट के अिधकार अपने आप म(cid:517) (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त ह(cid:520) और कोई भी (cid:281)यायालय अपने (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) लि(cid:286)बत वाद को (cid:293)वयं िकसी अ(cid:281)य (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) (cid:293)थाना(cid:281)तिरत नह(cid:514) कर सकता है। इस िलए (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) अ(cid:281)तग(cid:259)त धारा 340 (सी) सी०आर०पी०सी० िनर(cid:293)त िकया जाता है। िफर भी (cid:352)ाथ(cid:515) यिद अपने वाद को (cid:293)थाना(cid:281)तिरत कराना चाहता है तो वह स(cid:87)म (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) (cid:293)थाना(cid:281)तरण हेतु (cid:352)ाथ(cid:259)ना प(cid:347) योिजत कर सकता है। प(cid:347)ावली बाद आव(cid:291)यक काय(cid:259)वाही दािखल दफतर हो।" (x) During pendency of Writ Petition No. 14276(M/S) of 2018 (Arun Kumar Tiwari and another Versus Additional District Judge Court No.4, Lakhimpur Kheri and others), the petitioners instituted a Complaint Case No. 5358 of 2021 (Arun Kumar Tiwari Versus Kaushal Kishore Verma) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri (in short 'Magistrate'). (xi) The Magistrate upon due consideration of the facts of the case dismissed the aforesaid complaint case vide order dated 26.11.2021. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:- " 5 CRLP No. 2295 of 2025 (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत पिरवाद म(cid:517) (cid:281)यायालय अितिर(cid:472) मिज(cid:293)(cid:342)ेट खीरी के (cid:281)यायालय म(cid:517) िम(cid:278)या उ(cid:488)ोषणा िकये जाने व शपथ पर सा(cid:296)य िदया जाना कहा गया है। उ(cid:472) (cid:281)यायालय अितिर(cid:472) मिज(cid:293)(cid:342)ेट (cid:497)ारा न तो कोई (cid:352)ारि(cid:286)भक जाँच की गयी है और न ही उस (cid:281)यायालय (cid:497)ारा कोई पिरवाद िकया गया। पिरवादी को धारा 340 दं०(cid:352)०सं० के अ(cid:281)तग(cid:259)त पिरवाद करने का कोई अिधकार (cid:352)ा(cid:282)त नह(cid:514) है ऐसी ि(cid:293)थित म(cid:517) पिरवादी (cid:497)ारा (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत पिरवाद पोषणीय न होने के कारण िनर(cid:293)त िकये जाने यो(cid:264)य है। आदेश पिरवादी (cid:497)ारा (cid:352)(cid:293)तुत पिरवाद पोषणीय न होने के कारण िनर(cid:293)त िकया जाता है। प(cid:347)ावली दािखल दफतर की जाय।" (xii) The order of Magistrate dated 26.11.2021 was affirmed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri (in short 'revisional court') vide order dated 12.08.2022, whereby the Criminal Revision No. 17 of 2022 filed by the petitioner Arun Kumar Tiwari, was rejected. (xiii) After the aforesaid, the petitioner Arun Kumar Tiwari, filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the Prescribed Authority on 07.09.2022. (xiv) The Prescribed Authority after considering the facts placed before it, passed the order dated 01.04.2024. Relevant portion of the same reads as under:- (cid:259)(cid:472) िववेचना के आधार पर िदनांक 29.02.2016 को पािरत िकया गया आदेश यथावत् रखते "उपयु हए (cid:352)ितप(cid:87)ी (cid:352)ब(cid:281)धक कौशल िकशोर वमा पु(cid:347) (cid:361)ी लखपित वमा(cid:259) (cid:352)ब(cid:281)धक (cid:293)वामी िववेकान(cid:281)द उ०मा०िव० टो(cid:237)कपुर िड(cid:286)हौरा िनवासी (cid:334)ाम िड(cid:286)हौरा पो(cid:293)ट मुिडयाखे(cid:237)ा थाना व खीरी, को पुनः आदेश िदया जाता है िक (cid:352)ाथ(cid:515) अ(cid:628)ण कु मार ितवारी व संजीव कु मार ितवारी के बकाया वेतन भुगतान मु0 2,49,000/(cid:628)० आदेश पािरत होने के 15 िदन के अ(cid:281)दर अदा करे अ(cid:281)यथा की ि(cid:293)थित म(cid:517) वसूली भू- राज(cid:293)व की भाँित कराई जायेगी। प(cid:347)ावली बाद आव(cid:291)क काय(cid:259)वाही दािखल द(cid:283)तर हो।" (xv) A perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that Prescribed Authority rejected the application preferred by the petitioner Arun Kumar Tiwari, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (xvi) It also appears from the order dated 01.04.2024 that Prescribed Authority restored the order dated 29.02.2016, which is subject matter of pending Writ Petition No. 14276(M/S) of 2018 (Arun Kumar Tiwari and another Versus Additional District Judge Court No.4, Lakhimpur Kheri and others). (xvii) This order dated 01.04.2024 further indicates that Prescribed Authority directed the opposite party no.2/Kaushal Kishore Verma to pay Rs. Two Lakhs and Forty Nine Thousand within 15 days to the petitioners namely Arun Kumar Tiwari and Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari. (xviii) Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority, the opposite party no.2 approached the District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, by preferring a criminal revision in terms of Section 397 Cr.P.C., though according to the petitioners the appeal ought to have been filed in terms of Section 17 of the Act of 1968. In this revision registered as Revision No. 03 of 2025, the impugned order dated 04.02.2025, referred hereinabove, was passed. 6 CRLP No. 2295 of 2025

6. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, this Court finds that no interference in the order impugned dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Revisional Court is required by this Court. It is for the following reasons:- (i) Causing interference of impugned order dated 04.02.2025 would revive another illegal order/without jurisdiction order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority on an application preferred by the petitioner Arun Kumar Tiwari in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C. as vide order dated 01.04.2024, the Prescribed Authority restored the order dated 29.02.2016 and also directed the opposite party no.2/Kaushal Kishore Verma to pay Rs. Two Lakhs and Forty Nine thousand to the petitioners namely Arun Kumar Tiwari and Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari in terms of order dated 29.02.2016, which is not in existence and is subject matter of pending Writ Petition No. 14276(M/S) of 2018 (Arun Kumar Tiwari and another Versus Additional District Judge Court No.4, Lakhimpur Kheri and others). (ii) On the aforesaid aspect of the case, reference can made to various pronouncements including the following judgment(s). a) In the case of A.M. Allison Vs. B. L. Sen, AIR 1957 SC 227, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "Proceedings by way of certiorari are "not of course". (Vide Halsbury's 'Laws of England', Hailsham Edition, Vol 9, paras 1480 and 1481, pp. 877-878). The High Court of Assam had the power to refuse the writs if it was satisfied that there was no failure of justice and in these appeals which are directed against the orders of the High Court in applications under Art. 226, we could refuse to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the case requires to. But we are not so satisfied. We are of opinion that, having regard to the merits which have been concurrently found in favour of the respondents both by the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, and the High Court, we should decline to interfere." b) In the case of Grahi Shanker Singh Vs. VIII Addl. District Judge and Others, 1991 RD 10, the Court declined to interfere with the order passed in revision by the District Judge repelling the contention that the revision against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was not maintainable, on the ground that if substantial justice has been done, the Court under Article 226 is not bound to quash the order passed by any authority relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court. c) In the case of Bux Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow and others, AIR 1966 All 156, this Court observed as under:- "Where orders impugned are equitable and substantial justice seems to have been done to the parties, the High Court would not be inclined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction merely on the ground that such orders are wrong in law. d) The aforesaid is based on the judgment passed in the case of Parahu Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1964 AWR 155 and Begum A.H. Khan Vs. The Regional Transport Authority Meerut 1963 ALJ 909. 7 CRLP No. 2295 of 2025 e) In the case of Om Prakash Versus U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allenganj, Allahabad and Others, (1990) UP LBEC 983, this Court has observed as under:- "It is well settled that a decision of an authority, even though without jurisdiction, may not be quashed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution if by the decision the substantial justice is done between the parties." (Para 9) In the instant case, respondent No. 1 having found that though the inspection was alleged to have been done but the inspection memo being not on the record, he rightly directed for inspection again and thereafter to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. I do not find that it is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." f) In the case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor MANU/PR/0049/1946: AIR 1947 PC 67, the Privy council interpreting Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Privy Council considered the question whether non-compliance of an express provision of law would amount to an irregularity. The Privy Council held that distinction between illegality and irregularity was based on the degree rather than kind, if there was substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed, the defect, if any, would be irregularity but if the noncompliance was of mandatory provision of law, that would result in illegality. g) In the judgment dated 14.07.2014 passed in Writ- C No. 24211 of 2006 (Ram Nihor Versus Additional Commissioner (Administrative), Vindhyachal Div.) at Allahabad, this Court held that the order of allotment of land, if obtained by fraud or collusion cannot be allowed to stand and the court would not intervene in such matters so as to permit squandering of the property of the state which vests in the Gaon Sabha. Protection of the state property from such fraud by initiation of action for cancellation of allotment/lease would however, be independent of the power of cancellation of such allotment envisaged under section 198(4) of the Act. h) In the case of Nohar Lal Verma v. District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Jagdalpur, 2008 (14) SCC 445, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph - 32 as under : "Now, limitation goes to the root of the matter. If a suit, appeal or ap- plication is barred by limitation Court or an adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction, power or author-ity to entertain such a suit, appeal or application and to decide it on merits." And has further held after referring to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 that a suit or appeal preferred after the prescribed period has to be dismissed even though no such plea has been raised or defence has been set up at the threshold, by the Court itself. i) The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held if by quashing of illegal order another illegality revives, in that eventuality, the Court should not 8 CRLP No. 2295 of 2025 jurisdiction (See: Gadde interfere with such order under writ Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1966 SC - 828, Champalal Binani v. CIT, West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 645, Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1999 SC 3609, Malikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa and others v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2000 SC 2976, Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 2889, S.D.S. Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. Jay Container Ser-vices Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2003(4) Supreme 44, State of Uttaranchal and another v. Ajit Singh Bhola and another, (2004) 6 SCC 800 and State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 437). j) In the case of Bharat Singh Versus Additional Commissioner and Others reported in 2017 (5) ADJ 466, this Court observed as under:-

20. This Court is of the considered opinion that as and when it came to the notice of the authority concerned that allotment of land of Gaon Sabha had been made illegally to ineligible person ignoring the rightful claim of several others of the same village who came within the eligibility zone/order of preference given under sub-section (1) of Section 1998 of the Act, the authority concerned was duty bound to set up an inquiry and take action as legally permissible to remedy the wrong. Hence, the allotment order being ex facie illegal, even if the suo motu inquiry was set up by the Revenue Authority and action taken thereafter to correct the wrong could be said to be a bit delayed, this Court would not interfere and set aside such an order as it would revive the illegal allotment made in favour of the petitioner.

21. The allotment of the petitioner was a result of nepotism and corruption amounting to fraud played upon the Statute. Each day passing with 'the allotment of petitioner over the land in question continuing a fresh cause of action would arise. Being a continuing cause of action of which suo motu cognizance was taken by the Additional District Magistrate, it cannot be said to be an illegal or arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction by the Revenue Authorities. As such, I do not think that there is any good ground on which extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised by me to quash the order impugned. k) In Jodhey vs State, reported as AIR 1952 All 788, this Court considered the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of the High Court and the manner in which the same ought to be exercised. Relevant portion of the same reads:- "There are no limits, fetters or restrictions placed on this power of superintendence in this Clause and the purpose of this Article seems to be to make the High Court the custodian of all justice within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction and to arm it with a weapon that could be wielded for the purpose of seeing that justice is meted out fairly and properly by the bodies mentioned therein. "(emphasis supplied) l) In the case of Dukh Haran Verma Vs. State of U.P. (2004) 2 AWC 1147, this Court has observed as under:- 9 CRLP No. 2295 of 2025 "4. It must be remembered that writ is discretionary remedy vide Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 545: JT (2003) 6 SC 20. In a writ petition the petitioner has not only to show violation of law, he must also show that equity is in his favour. Thus, to obtain a writ the petitioner must satisfy the Court about both law and equity. If the petitioner has only satisfied the Court that the law has been violated but equity is not in his favour the Court shall not issue a writ.

5. In the present case, admittedly the resolution for no-confidence was passed by 2/3rd of the members of the Board of Directors of the Bank as required by Rule 460. Hence assuming that initiation of the proceedings by means of the notice was bad as the notice was not valid yet the resolution has validly been passed by 2/3rd members of the Board of Directors of the Bank. It must be remembered that if 2/3rd members of the Board are against the petitioner then as provided under the Rules he has to quit his office. m) In the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences Vs. Bikartan Das 2023 SCC OnLine SC 99, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "52. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be falling in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not."

7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is dismissed. Cost made easy. December 2, 2025 Jyoti/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) JYOTI RAJWANI JYOTI RAJWANI JYOTI RAJWANI JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Deo Raj Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat and perused the records.

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Criminal Procedure