Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:94988 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5033 of 2025 Ashok Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhinav Shukla, Ram Shiromani Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arti Singh, G.A. Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K.Singh, learned AGA for the State are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set-aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 passed by Court of Additional Session Judge Court No. 1, Sonbhadra in Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. UPSB010047792023) (Ashok Kumar versus Manoj Kumar Tiwari and others) and order dated 22.08.2023 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate Vindhyachal Mandal, District Sonbhadra in Case No. 4606 of 2015 (Computerized Case No. T20151666014606) (Ashok Kumar Tiwari versus Manoj Kumar Tiwari) whereby the learned Magistrate in illegal an arbitrary manner withdraw previous order dated 24.08.2015 which was passed U/s 145(1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the death of his father, the agricultural property bearing Arazi No. 269 and Arazi No. 101 vested in the petitioner, his mother, and his two brothers. All of them were having 1/4 share in the said property. However, the respondents fraudulently got a sale deed executed from the mother of the petitioner in favour of their wives. Thereafter, they started interfering in the possession of the petitioner, subsequent to which he filed an application before the SDM, which was registered as Case No. 50 of 2015, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. (Ashok Kumar Tiwari vs. Manoj Kumar Tiwari and others). An order under Sections 145(1) and 146(1) Cr.P.C. was passed by the Magistrate on 24.08.2015. Thereafter, the said proceedings were finally decided on 22.08.2023, whereby the learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by observing that a civil suit between the parties was pending and the disputed property was unpartitioned property between the co-sharers who are litigating before the concerned court.
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2023, he preferred Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2023 (Ashok Kumar vs. Manoj Kumar Tiwari and others), which too was dismissed on 24.02.2025 by affirming the findings recorded by the learned SDM. Learned counsel submitted that the SDM, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C., cannot drop proceedings under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. in the absence of any police report stating that there is no danger of breach of peace and tranquility. However, the SDM has not only stopped the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. but has also recalled its order passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C.
5. It was further submitted that the learned SDM has wrongly held that a civil suit between the parties is pending, whereas no such civil suit was pending before any civil court rather, a suit for cancellation of the sale deed was instituted by the petitioner before a competent civil court. It was further submitted that the law is well settled that proceedings under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. can be initiated even in respect of disputed properties which are co-owned between different shareholders, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate that proceedings under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated in co-shared property is erroneous. He further submitted that mere pendency of a civil suit is not sufficient to drop the proceedings under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rama Shanker Tewari and another vs. The State and others has held that proceedings under Section 145(1) are permissible even in cases of properties where there are more than one co-sharers. He further submitted that this Court in Irfan Ali vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 2024 NCAHC 39510 and Jai Narain and another vs. State of U.P. and others 1993 CriLJ 3687 has held that mere pendency of a civil suit is not a ground to revoke the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial court as well as the revisional court have committed gross illegality in applying the law regarding the lis which was before the learned SDM pertaining to the dispute between the parties regarding their respective shares. He submitted that both orders are liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the chances of breach of peace and tranquility are very much evident from the findings recorded by the SDM that both parties present in the court were adamant to quarrel with each other. The conduct of the parties itself is sufficient to establish that the chances of breach of peace were very much in existence at the time when the proceedings under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. were dropped by the concerned SDM.
8. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the law is well settled that when a dispute pertaining to a particular issue has been agitated in a civil suit, the same dispute cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that a categorical finding has been recorded by the revisional court that a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed is pending, which was filed by the petitioner. He submitted, therefore, that continuation of proceedings under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., particularly when a civil suit in respect of the same dispute is pending, is illegal and impermissible.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the allegations which gave rise to the initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., it is evident that the disputed property, which vested in favour of the petitioner, his two brothers, and his mother after the death of the petitioner's father, was later sold in favour of the two brothers of the petitioner by the mother. It appears that the mother has sold her own share in favour of her daughters-in-law. It has also been alleged that the mother has sold in excess of her share. Even if the entire allegations are assumed to be true, these allegations relate to the respective shares of the parties in reference to the agricultural land which they have acquired in succession after the death of its true owner.
10. There is no denial of the fact that the disputed agricultural land has not been partitioned by a competent revenue court till date. Therefore, it is also pertinent to mention that in the absence of any partition, none of the parties can claim sole possession over any particular portion of the land. Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity in the legal findings recorded by both the courts below.
11. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) April 28, 2026 Ujjawal