Allahabad High Court
Deepak Singh Rajawat vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 July, 2023
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:139351 Court No. - 4 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22043 of 2023 Applicant :- Deepak Singh Rajawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- S Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned A.G.A for the State-respondent No.1.
2. The applicant has preferred the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the the entire proceedings of the Criminal Misc. Case No. 928 of 2021 (Smt. Anjali Singh And Another Versus Deepak Singh Rajawat) under Sub Section 125 (3) & 128 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Kotwali-Orai, District Jalaun, pending before the Leaned Principal Family Judge, Jalaun at Orai. A further prayer has also been made to stay the further proceedings of the Criminal Misc. Case No. 928 of 2021 (Smt. Anjali Singh And Another Versus Deepak Singh Rajawat) under Sub Section. (3) of Section 125 & 128 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Kotwali-Orai, District Jalaun, pending before the Leaned Principal Family Judge, Jalaun at Orai,
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the procedure adopted by the Additional Principal Judge Family Court Orai at Jalaun while proceedings in the aforesaid misc. case is per se illegal and against the provisions contained under Sub Section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. read with Section 421 Cr.PC. and the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge Family Court Jalaun at Orai is illegal in the eyes of law which is quoted below:-
???? R.W. ???? ?? ? S.S.P. ?? ???? ???? ???? ? ??????? ???????? ???????? ?????? 27.01.2023 ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no such procedure prescribed in law to issue recovery warrant through S.S.P. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the order of this Court passed in the case of Vipin Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2022(152) ALR 478. In the aforesaid case, it is held by this Court that Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue warrant straightway for payment of maintenance allowance. He relied upon paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of the aforesaid judgment which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"7. Before coming to the merits of the present case, it would be worthwhile to reproduce Sections 125 (3) and 421 Cr.P.C., which read as follows:
"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
.......
If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month' s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made.
.........."
"421. Warrant for levy of fine.
(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may-
(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter: Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357.
The State Government may make rules regulating the manner In which warrants under clause (a) of sub- section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant.
Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender."
8. On a plain reading of sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is apparently clear that in the event of any failure on the part of any person to comply with an order to pay maintenance allowance, without sufficient cause, the Magistrate is empowered to issue warrant for levying the amount due in manner provided for levying of fines for every breach of the order. Section 421Cr.P.C. prescribes the manner for levying fine and clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 421 provides for issuance of warrant for levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender. In other words, in the event of any failure without sufficient cause to comply with the order for maintenance allowance, the Magistrate is empowered to issue distress warrant for the purpose of realization of the amount, in respect of which default has been made, by attachment and sale of any movable property, that may seized in execution of such warrant. Sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. makes it further clear that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate for sentencing such person to imprisonment would arise only after the maintenance allowance, in whole or in part, remains unpaid after the maintenance allowance, in warrant. It is only after the sentence of imprisonment is awarded by the Magistrate under sub-section (3) of Section 125 that the occasion may arise for issuance of warrant of arrest for bringing the person concerned to Court for his committal to prison to serve out the sentence.
9. It is further apparent that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue warrant of arrest straight way against the person liable for payment of maintenance allowance in the event of non-payment of maintenance allowance within the time fixed by the court without first levying the amount due as fine and without making any attempt for reaslization that fine in one or both the modes for recovery of that fine as provided for in clauses (a) or (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 421 Cr.P.C. say by issuance of distress warrant for attachment and sale of movable property belonging to the defaulter as contemplated under Section 421 (1) (a) and without first sentencing the defaulter to imprisonment after the execution of the distress warrant.
5. In support of his case, he also relied upon an order dated 21.03.1991 passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Om Prakash alias Prakash Vs. Vidya Devi reported in 1992 CriLJ 658.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid, it is argued that the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge Family Court Jalaun at Orai is illegal and prays that the same be quashed.
7. Learned A.G.A does not dispute the said fact.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. From perusal of the record it is clear that since there is no such provisions in the law and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue recovery warrant through S.S.P. for payment of maintenance allowance, and in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Vipin Kumar (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge Family Court Jalaun at Orai is illegal and liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.
10. The Additional Principal Judge Family Court Jalaun at Orai is directed to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
11. Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned A.G.A for the State-respondent No.1 is directed to inform regarding this order to the S.S.P. Jalaun within twenty four hours.
Order Date :- 13.7.2023 saqlain