Janardan Prasad Mishra v. The Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fifth,/Special Judge (Gangster Act) Gonda and 4 Others

Reserved on 27.10.2023 Delivered on 01.11.2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7139 of 2023 Petitioner :- Janardan Prasad Mishra Respondent :- The Addl. District And Sessions Judge, Fifth,/Special Judge (Gangster Act) Gonda And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Shukla,Pallavi Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajendra Prasad Yadav Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent no. 1 to 4.

¶2Notices to respondent no. 5 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶3This petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated

24.08.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 5th/ Special Judge (Gangster Act), District Gonda, contained in Annexure No. 1, and the order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gonda, contained in Annexure No. 2 to the petition.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. could not have been passed by the magistrate against the petitioner as the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land for the last several years. The petitioner has also filed a regular suit No. 3384 of 2019 "Janardan Prasad Mishra Vs. Paddum and others" in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gonda and opposite party no. 5 has also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the court of First Additional Civil Judge (JD) Gonda bearing Regular Suit No. 2989 of 2019 "Pradumna Mishra and another Vs. Janardan Prasad Mishra" and both the suits are pending in the Civil Court and therefore, the magistrate had no authority to take cognizance under Section 133 Cr.P.C. in criminal proceedings.

It has been further submitted that by the impugned order, the rights of the petitioner have been affected adversely. The disputed land is sahan of the petitioner through which opposite party no. 5 used to go, however, he has alternative pathway to go on his grove and other agricultural land and it is totally private dispute.

¶6Learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the petition submitting that from perusal of the record and the report of the Tehsildar as well as report of the police, it is evident that the petitioner has encroached on public kharanja and relying on the report of Tehsildar, the learned magistrate has rightly passed the impugned order. The petitioner has failed to show any documentary or oral evidence before the learned magistrate.

¶7Perused the record. The impugned order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Gonda shows that the order has been passed taking into account the report of Tehsildar in which report of Lekhpal dated

08.09.2019, Khatauni year 1422 fasli to 1427 fasli of gata No. 438/0.547 hectare has been considered which shows that the disputed land is recorded as Abadi. The petitioner has been found encroacher of khranja road by making house and boundary. There is still kharanja at the last end of the boundary. The relevant part of the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gonda is extracted below:-

उप቟኎क्䅲⟌दोन☀ṡपलि ઢɶ जां落आख्቟኎ा቟኎펷푭एं쪕숗द्लि쪕숗䅲⟌ी቟኎प꺉謊्ቛ ाराप्रस्䅲⟌䅲⟌लि लि 䅲⟌कथन쪕숗प䅲⟌्रा쪕숗 ी

परउप ब्㢖⛒अन्቟኎ઢɶઢɶंग䅲⟌ઢɶा꺉謊቟኎☀ṡक펷푭अ쪕숗 ोकनोपरान्䅲⟌दोनोजां落आख्቟኎ाओंम䥓䄟लि쪕숗रो㢖⛒ाभाᮘኲहोन펷푭

क펷푭कार⛪ᖻमौक펷푭कीઢɶहीलिस्थलि䅲⟌प䅲⟌्रा쪕숗 ीपरनहोन펷푭क펷푭कार⛪ᖻमौक펷푭कीઢɶहीलिस्थलि䅲⟌प䅲⟌्रा쪕숗 ीपर

नहोन펷푭क펷푭कार⛪ᖻलिदनांक05.07.2019

कोम펷푭र펷푭्ቛ ारा䅲⟌हઢɶी दारઢɶ펷푭स्थ ी቟኎जां落करलि쪕숗स्䅲⟌ृ䅲⟌आख्቟኎ा

प्रस्䅲⟌䅲⟌करन펷푭कालिनद/ƭ풤लिद቟኎ाग቟኎ा�꾲䅲⟌हઢɶी दारकीआख्቟኎ान्቟኎ा቟኎ा ቟኎कोप्राप्䅲⟌हⶮᯃआख्቟኎ाका

अ쪕숗 ोकनलिक቟኎ाग቟኎ाजां落आख्቟኎ाम䥓䄟 펷푭 पा कीलिरपो⓿⶿ लिदनांक08.09.2019

䅲⟌ौनीઢɶन्14220

ઢɶ펷푭1422 फ0

म䥓䄟गा⓿⶿ाઢɶंख्቟኎ा438/0.5470

आबादीक펷푭 ा䅲⟌펷푭ઢɶ펷푭अंलिक䅲⟌है�꾲 䅲⟌ौनीकीप्रमालि⛪ᖻ䅲⟌

प्रलि䅲⟌ઢɶं ग्नहै�꾲उक्䅲⟌आबादीक펷푭नम्बरक펷푭बी落쪕숗ᮘኲ 2002 म䥓䄟पी0 डब् ू0

डी化䧯रोडपरबै 㢖⛒ारपर쪕숗ा

कोजान펷푭क펷푭लि एƭ풤ोभारामक펷푭घरઢɶ펷푭अध्቟኎ाप्रઢɶादक펷푭घर䅲⟌क100

मी化䧯 ड़ंजापू쪕숗 प्र㢖⛒ानƭ풤्री

लिमठू ा ्ቛ ारा ग쪕숗ा቟኎ाग቟኎ाथा�꾲उक्䅲⟌ ड़ंजामाग कोलि쪕숗प꺉謊ीजनादनलिमƭ풤्रन펷푭पक्कामकान

䅲⟌थाबाउण्ड्रीबनाकरपू⛪ᖻ रूपઢɶ펷푭बन्दकरलिद቟኎ाहै�꾲बाउण्ड्रीक펷푭अलिन्䅲⟌मछोरपर ड़ंजा गा

हआहै�꾲नक्ƭ풤ा

नज़रीभीઢɶं ग्नलिक቟኎ाग቟኎ाहै�꾲उक्䅲⟌जां落आख्቟኎ाको䅲⟌हઢɶी दार्ቛ ारा

ઢɶम्प्र펷푭लिᮘኲ䅲⟌लिक቟኎ाग቟኎ाहै�꾲

प䅲⟌्रा쪕숗 ीઢɶन쪕숗ाⶮᯃह펷푭䅲⟌ न्቟኎ा቟኎ा ቟኎क펷푭ઢɶम꺉謊प्रस्䅲⟌䅲⟌हⶮᯃउभ቟኎प꺉謊क펷푭लि쪕숗्ቛानअलि㢖⛒쪕숗क्䅲⟌ाओंकी

बहઢɶ कोलि쪕숗स्䅲⟌ारपू쪕숗कઢɶनाग቟኎ाप䅲⟌्रा쪕숗 ीकालि쪕숗लि㢖⛒ઢɶम्म቟኎कपलिरƭ풤ी नलिक቟኎ाग቟኎ा�꾲प䅲⟌्रा쪕숗 ी

क펷푭अ쪕숗 ोकनઢɶ펷푭प्रथमदृष्⓿⶿቟኎ा቟኎ह䅲⟌थ्቟኎प्रकाƭ풤म䥓䄟आ቟኎ालिक쪕숗ᮘኲ 2002

म펷푭उ䅲⟌रौ ा㢖⛒ान펷푭परमाग

ઢɶ펷푭ब펷푭 쪕숗ारपर쪕숗ाकोजान펷푭쪕숗ा 펷푭 डन्जामाग कोपू쪕숗 प्र㢖⛒ान्ቛ ारा ग쪕숗ा቟኎ाग቟኎ाथाजैઢɶ펷푭लिक

䅲⟌हઢɶी कीआख्቟኎ाम펷푭स्पष्⓿⶿उलिG लि 䅲⟌हैउक्䅲⟌ डन्जामाग कोलि쪕숗प꺉謊ीन펷푭पक्कामकान쪕숗

बाउण्ड्रीबनाकरअ쪕숗रु�ȳ करलिद቟኎ाहैबाउण्ड्रीक펷푭आग펷푭अलिन्䅲⟌मछोरपर ड़न्जा गाहआहै�꾲

इઢɶ प्रकार቟኎हस्पष्⓿⶿हैलिक쪕숗ᮘኲ 2002 म䥓䄟उ्ሹ

लि쪕숗쪕숗ालिद䅲⟌भूलिमम펷푭 ग펷푭हए ड़ंजामाग कोलि쪕숗प꺉謊ी

दद्लि쪕숗䅲⟌ी቟኎प꺉謊्ቛ ाराउઢɶकीⶮᯃ⓿⶿펷푭उ ाड़करआ쪕숗ागमनबालि㢖⛒䅲⟌करलिद቟኎ाहै�꾲दद्लि쪕숗䅲⟌ी቟኎प꺉謊्ቛ ारा቟኎ह

भीकहाग቟኎ाहैलिकदी쪕숗ानीन्቟኎ा቟኎ा ቟኎म䥓䄟ઢɶामान्቟኎쪕숗ादलि쪕숗落ारा㢖⛒ीनहैइઢɶलि एइઢɶ का቟኎쪕숗ाहीका

कोⶮᯃऔलि落त्቟኎नहीहै�꾲

उप቟኎क्䅲⟌लि쪕숗쪕숗펷푭落नाक펷푭क्रमम䥓䄟䅲⟌थाप䅲⟌्रा쪕숗 ीपरउप ब्㢖⛒ઢɶઢɶंग䅲⟌ઢɶा꺉謊቟኎☀ṡक펷푭आ㢖⛒ारपरमሉአइઢɶ

लिनष्कᮘኲ परपहँ落䅲⟌ाहूँलिकप्रस्䅲⟌䅲⟌का቟኎쪕숗ाही㢖⛒ारा133

ઢɶी化䧯आर化䧯पी化䧯ઢɶी化䧯का቟኎쪕숗ाहीक펷푭अन्䅲⟌ग䅲⟌

ઢɶा쪕숗जलिनकमाग परलिक቟኎펷푭ग቟኎펷푭अनालि㢖⛒कृ䅲⟌अलि䅲⟌क्रम⛪ᖻकोह⓿⶿ा቟኎ाजानान्቟኎ा቟኎ोलि落䅲⟌प्र䅲⟌ी䅲⟌हो䅲⟌ा है�꾲 आद펷푭ƭ풤

प䅲⟌्रा쪕숗 ीम䥓䄟ઢɶं ग्नजां落आख्቟኎ाक펷푭आ ोकम䥓䄟ઢɶं ग्ननक्ƭ풤ानजरीक펷푭अनઢɶारउ䅲⟌रौ ा㢖⛒ान펷푭पर

माग ઢɶ펷푭ब펷푭 쪕숗ारपर쪕숗ाकोजान펷푭쪕숗ा 펷푭 डन्जामाग परलि쪕숗प꺉謊ीजनादनलिमƭ풤्रप䅲⟌्रराममन्जूर

लिमƭ풤्रकोलिनद/लिƭ풤䅲⟌लिक቟኎ाजा䅲⟌ाहैलिकઢɶा쪕숗जलिनकमाग ઢɶ펷푭अनालि㢖⛒कृ䅲⟌रूपઢɶ펷푭लिक቟኎펷푭ग቟኎펷푭अलि䅲⟌क्रम⛪ᖻ

कोह⓿⶿쪕숗ाकरआ쪕숗ागमनઢɶ落ारूरूपઢɶ펷푭बहा कर䥓䄟�꾲቟኎हआद펷푭ƭ풤दी쪕숗ानीन्቟኎ा቟኎ा ቟኎म펷푭पालिर䅲⟌

अलिन्䅲⟌मआद펷푭ƭ풤क펷푭अ㢖⛒ीनरह펷푭गा�꾲आद펷푭ƭ풤कीप्रमालि⛪ᖻ䅲⟌प्रलि䅲⟌थानाध्቟኎꺉謊㢖⛒ान펷푭परकोअनपा न

ह펷푭䅲⟌ भ펷푭जीजाए�꾲बादआ쪕숗श्቟኎कका቟኎쪕숗ाहीप䅲⟌्रा쪕숗 ीदालि

दफ्䅲⟌रहो�꾲" Against the impugned order dated 27.06.2022, the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge which has also been dismissed vide order dated 24.08.2023 in which learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision has also considered the report of Tehsildar, the relevant khatauni and noticed that the revisionist has no documentary or oral evidence in support of his contention. Both the orders passed by the concerned courts have been passed in the proceedings initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. for removal of nuisance. The proceedings are summary in nature. Rights of the parties have not been adjudicated through these proceedings.

¶8I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, so far as the pendency of civil suits as contended by the petitioner before the competent civil court is concerned, the impugned order shall be subjected to the outcome of the proceedings in the civil suits.

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Order Date :-01.11.2023 RC High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench