Allahabad High Court
Smt. Seema Kapoor vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 28 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9466 Court No. - 30 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1155 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt. Seema Kapoor Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shraddha Agarwal,Shobhit Mohan Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Madhavesh Mishra,Mahendra Nath Mishra Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
(1) Heard Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State, Shri Mahendra Nath Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.6 and perused the material brought on record.
(2) This criminal revision under Section 438/442 of B.N.S.S. (corresponding Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the revisionist, Smt. Seema Kapoor, against the judgment dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.727 of 2023: Uma Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Misc. Case No. 89184 of 2023 : Uma Shankar Vs. Lalit Kishore Mehrotra, rejecting the protest application of respondent no.6-Uma Shankar against the Final Report No. 02 dated 17.11.2022, has itself been set-aside and consequently the learned Sessions Judge has remanded the matter for fresh adjudication to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(3) Revisionist is also seeking to quash the proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 89184 of 2023 : Uma Shankar Vs. Lalit Kishor Mehrotra, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
Facts (4) Brief facts relevant for the disposal of present revision are that pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on an application filed by the complainant/ respondent no.6 (Uma Shankar) registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 89184 of 2023 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., an F.I.R. dated 09.01.2021, bearing Case Crime No. 0015 of 2021, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station No. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, against Seema Kapoor (revisionist) and others. It is alleged that complainant(Uma Shankar) had a shop, bearing No.13, area 24.6225 Sq. Mt. (7.35 length and 3.15 width). On or about 09.03.1988, Wasi Ahmad gave an affidavit of allotment/possession of the said shop in favour of the complainant to the Lucknow Development Authority, upon which on 24.03.1988, a letter of allotment was given by the office of Lucknow Development Authority to the complainant. The said shop was allotted on a sale consideration of Rs.38,400/- out of which complainant was to pay Rs.125/- per month as rent and Rs.8000/- as installment. The complainant had deposited the entire amount of sale consideration to the Lucknow Development Authority as on 25.08.1992. Thereafter, complainant had moved application between 25.08.1992 to 21.12.2019 before the Lucknow Development Authority for registration of the said shop in his favour but the same was not effected. It has further been alleged that in the intervening period on 27.12.1993, the complainant, while making payment of entire sale consideration, submitted an application before the Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority and it was also alleged that on 24.03.1988, possession of the said shop was delivered to the complainant. Thereafter, on the saying of Ex-Chief Engineer of Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow, namely, Lalit Kishore Mehrotra, son of late Madan Mohan Lal Mehrotra, resident of D.S.11, Nirala Nagar, Police Station Hasanganj, Lucknow, the said shop was given to his female friend, Seema Kapoor (revisionist herein) on rent of Rs.3000/- per month with effect from 01.02.1995 together with 10% per annum annual increase of rent, but the intention of the said Lalit Kishore Mehoratra was bad and with the collusion of some employees of Lucknow Development Authority, the said Lalit Kishore Mehoratra made the file of the said shop disappear with the intention to grab the said shop. In the meanwhile, the complainant visited the office of the Lucknow Development Authority frequently to get the said shop registered and subsequently, he got the papers relating to the said shop, upon which he got information of the criminal act of the said Lalit Kishore Mehrotra and became clear that the file of the said shop had been purposely disappeared w.e.f. 25.03.2000 for 14 years and it was on 26.08.2014, that the said Lalit Kishore Mehrotra by showing the complainant dead with the collusion of the department, got the file of the said shop disappear, whereas the complainant's address was very much mentioned in his application made before the department.
It has further been alleged that Shri Ravi Prakash Awasthi, Incharge Officer and Shri D.S. Rathour, Joint Secretary, while showing the complainant missing in October, 2014, had illegally shown the said Lalit Kishore Mehrotra as owner of the said shop and this information was published in Dainik Newspaper, Times of India Express on 02.11.2014. It has also been alleged that in this conspiracy, Shri Devendra Lal Arya, Section Officer and Virendra Singh, Section Officer, of the Lucknow Development Authority were also involved.
It has also been alleged by the complainant that as the rent of the said shop was not paid by Smt. Seema Kapoor (revisionist) to him, he took the key of the said shop from Smt. Seema Kapoor in the month of August, 2019 and established his Chamber in the said shop on 27.12.2019 as he is an Advocate. It has also been alleged that Smt. Seema Kapoor (revisionist) has paid only Rs.6000/- as advance on 01.02.1995 and thereafter she did not pay any rent to him and she told him that she gave rent of the said shop to Shri Lalit Kishore Mehrotra, therefore, by making forged documents, she used the Will of her mother Smt. Rajrani dated 26.01.2007 for grabbing the said shop and conspiracy to get the ownership of the said shop was made. In the said conspiracy, Shri Lalit Kishore Mehrotra included the employees and officials of the Lucknow Development Authority and also in preparation of forged Will with regard to the said shop, witnesses Umesh Chandra and others, in which the sister of Lalit Kishore Mehrotra, namely, Malti Devi, Sushan Tandon, Sarojani Devi, Suman Mehrotra, Smt. Kamal Baijal etc. were also involved.
It was also alleged that Lalit Kishore Mehrotra also made scam in various plots and houses of Lucknow Development Authority, by which he benefited his family and his relatives and as of now, litigation regarding some of the property is still going on. It has also been alleged by the complainant that when he confronted about showing him dead by the Lucknow Development Authority and also about forged Will from Lalit Kishore Mehrotra, then Seema Kapoor (revisionist), Ravi Prakash Awasthi and B.S. Rathour presented along with Lalit Kishore Mehrotra, had abused him and threatened him to kill and also not to meet again.
(5) According to the revisionist, the allegations made in the aforesaid F.I.R. was investigated, however, as no incriminating material against the revisionist was found, the Investigating Officer had submitted Final Report No. 01 dated 16.02.2021 (hereinafter referred as 'First Final Report') against the revisionist. This First Final Report was challenged by the complainant/respondent no.6 by filing protest application, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 89184 of 2023. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, vide order dated 18.04.2022, while allowing the protest petition, quashed the first final report and directed the Investigating Officer to re-investigate the matter. Pursuant to the said order dated 18.04.2022, the allegations of the aforesaid F.I.R. was re-investigated and the Investigating Officer, after due investigation, again did not find any incriminating material against the revisionist and as such, Final Report No. 02 dated 17.11.2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'Second Final Report') was submitted before the trial Court.
(6) The complainant, thereafter, again filed protest application challenging the second final report, which came to be rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow vide order dated 12.09.2023 while accepting the Second Final Report dated 17.11.2022. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 727 of 2023, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow, vide order dated 12.08.2024, while allowing the aforesaid revision, set-aside the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and remitted the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It is this order dated 12.08.2024, which has been assailed by the revisionist in the present revision.
Scope of Revision under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.-
(7) Before analyzing the facts and grounds of the case on merits, it would be appropriate to examine the scope and ambit of criminal revision/powers of Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. In this connection, this Court deems it apt to refer the decisions of Apex Court in State Vs. R. Soundirarasu : AIR 2022 SC 4218, wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-
"75. In Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 631: (AIR 2002 SC 107: 2002 Cri. L.J. 225 (SC)), this Court held as under:-
"3.....The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged."
76. Thus, the revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination of the material on record as it is undertaken by the trial court or the appellate court. This power can only be exercised if there is any legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings or if the facts as stated in the chargesheet are taken to be true on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. It is conferred to check grave error of law or procedure."
(8) In State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand : (2004) 7 SCC 659, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"22. The Revisional Court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 410 Cr.P.C. Section 401 Cr.P.C. is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of Appellate Court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the Sessions Court. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court." It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise all appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C. conferring powers of Appellate Court on the Revisional Court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in Section 395 to Section 401 Cr.P.C., read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power."
Findings (9) Now in the light of above legal parameter, this Court will examine the facts of the present case.
(10) Challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he has challenged the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 insofar as it relates to revisionist Smt. Seema Kapoor only. According to the learned Counsel, the revisionist was merely a tenant in the shop in question and none of the allegations made in both the final reports has been found worthy to hold any water against her. Revisionist has no concern at all with the alleged inter se dispute between the respondent no.6 and Lalit Kishor Mehrotra (now deceased). He submits that the name of the erstwhile owner i.e. late Lalit Kishore Mehrotra has been removed by the learned Additional District Judge-I on an application preferred by the wife of late Lalit Kishore Mehrotra, however, no objection to the said application has been filed by the complainant. In fact, the the respondent no.6 himself admitted in the impugned F.I.R. that the revisionist was the tenant of the shop in question only and now she is not the tenant of the shop in question since 2019, however, for some oblique motive, respondent no.6/ complainant is trying to narrate his version of story qua late Lalit Kishor Mehrotra, but the fact of the matter is that the revisionist is confined to her grievance only.
(11) Drawing attention to the F.I.R. i.e. Case Crime No. 0015 of 2021, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station No. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, learned Counsel for the revisionist states that a civil dispute i.e. ownership of the shop in question between the respondent no.6(complainant) and late Lalit Kishore Mehrotra is being tried to be given a colour of criminal act in the present crime case and unfortunately, the trial Court has lost sight of these overwhelming fact in not considering the matter in its right perspective.
(12) Learned Counsel for the revisionist, therefore, has submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge while setting aside the order of the learned CJM, Lucknow has actually rejected the 2nd final report and has failed to record any cogent reasons in respect of any new set of facts nor indicated any significant oversight or error in the final report that would necessitate re-opening of the investigation qua the present revisionist only who was merely an earlier tenant of the shop in question .
(13) Learned Counsel for the respondent no.6(Complainant), on the other hand, does not dispute the fact that the revisionist in the capacity of tenant was doing business from the shop in question w.e.f. 1997 and she was not the tenant of the shop in question since 2019.
(14) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record including the impugned order, this Court finds that the grounds taken by the revisionist in the present revision show that revisionist has challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court dated 12.08.2024 mainly on the ground that she was only a tenant of the shop in question and she has no concerned with the inter se dispute between the complainant and other accused persons and more so, the revisionist is no longer tenant of the shop in question since 2019, which has not been disputed by the complainant.
(15) During course of argument, learned Counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.6 has admitted the fact that the revisionist was merely a tenant only and she has no concern with the dispute relating to the various criminal acts incidental to the ownership of the shop in question, which primarily arose between the complainant/ opposite parties no.6 and other accused persons, therefore, he has no objection in case the impugned order insofar as it relates to revisionist be set-aside.
(16) This Court finds that right from the institution of F.I.R., the assertion of complainant/opposite party no.6 was that the revisionist was the tenant of the shop in question only and she has no concern with the inter se dispute between the complainant and other accused persons. Based on this fact that the revisionist was only a tenant and she has no role with regard to the dispute in question, twice final reports have been filed as apparently the investigating agency did not find any incriminating material against the revisionist.
(17) From perusal of the impugned order also it can be safely deduced that the learned session Court in specific terms noted the fact that the revisionist was a tenant of the shop in question. Except this finding, nothing material findings has been noted by the trial Court against the revisionist, while passing the impugned order, which shows that the learned Sessions Court has overlooked the fact that the revisionist was only a tenant and she has no concerned with the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. while passing the impugned order.
(18) In view of the aforesaid, the present revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.08.2024 as well as Criminal Misc. Case No. 89184 of 2023 (supra) insofar as it relates to the revisionist only are hereby set-aside. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the complainant/respondent No.6 in prosecuting the crime case relating to the other accused, if any, as may be pending before the learned Trial Court.
(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) Order Date : 28.01.2025 Ajit/-