Allahabad High Court
Beerendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 July, 2023
Author: Vipin Chandra Dixit
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144019 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7445 of 2023 Petitioner :- Beerendra Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Maurya,Mahima Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Diptiman Singh Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 and perused the record.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 has raised a preliminary objection that father of petitioner, namely, Jai Pal Singh had already challenged the order dated 15.4.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Case No.225 of 2004, under Section 630 of the Company Act, 1956 and the appeal preferred by father of petitioner against the order dated 15.4.2006 was also dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Meerut vide order dated 28.4.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2006. The present petition on behalf of petitioner against the same impugned orders is not maintainable. It is further pointed out that father of petitioner had also challenged both the orders by filing Criminal Revision No.2400 of 2011 (Jai Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 5.12.2014. The father of petitioner has not challenged the judgment and order dated 5.12.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No.2400 of 2011 which attained finality. Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner, who is son of Jai Pal Singh had filed the present petition challenging the order dated 15.4.2006 passed by C.J.M., Meerut as well as the order dated 28.4.2011 passed by lower appellate court, as such present petition is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid facts.
In the present petition the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-
"(i) to set aside the Misc. Proceeding No. 323/2011 (Modi Industries Vs. Jai Pal) pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut as well as impugned order dated 15.04.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Case No.225/2004 Under Section 630 of the Company Act, 1956."
(ii) Direct the defendant no.2 not to evict the plaintiff from the accommodation in question i.e. Quarter no. D-330 Multanipura, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201204 during the pendency of the present petition.
(iii) Direct the defendant no.2 not to realize any amount in pursuance of the order dated 15.04.2006 as well as 28.04.2011 and the order passed in Misc. Proceeding No.323/2011 (Modi Industries Vs. Jai Pal)."
From bare perusal of reliefs of the present petition, it is absolutely clear that present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.4.2006 passed by C.J.M., Meerut in Case No.225 of 2004, under Section 630 of the Company Act, 1956 and order dated 28.4.2011 passed by the lower appellate court whereas the father of petitioner had already challenged the aforesaid orders by filing Criminal Revision No.2400 of 2011, which was dismissed on 5.12.2014, therefore the present petition on behalf of the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 19.7.2023 Kpy