AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the documents available on record.
This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 30.8.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-1, Hardoi in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2010; Samundara Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision filed by the Petitioner and maintained the order dated 20.2.2010, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Hardoi whereby he after disposal of the criminal case No. 3573 of 2004, on the application moved by opposite parties No. 3 and 4, has ordered for giving the house in Supurdgi to some other person as the earlier Supurdgar, who was husband of the Petitioner had died.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that on the written report of the complainant Om Prakash Gupta, who was husband of the Petitioner, the police of Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi, registered a case under Sections 448, 143 I.P.C. at Case Crime No. 296 of 1988 against accused Jeet Bahadur, Amar Singh and Chandra Prakash. The Investigating Officer after investigation of the case had submitted charge sheet against the accused which gave rise to the criminal case No. 3573 of 2004. The accused were tried by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, who vide judgment and order dated 22.4.2009 acquitted the accused. During the pendency of criminal case, the house in dispute was given in Supurdigi of the complainant Om Prakash Gupta, the husband of the Petitioner. After disposal of the criminal case, the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 moved an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for possession of the house which was given in Supurdgi of complainant. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 20.2.2010, rejected the application and ordered that the house which was given in Supurdgi of complainant be given to some other person on appropriate terms. Against the impugned order dated 20.2.2010, the Petitioner preferred revision which was too dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-1, Hardoi.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the complainant Om Prakash Gupta had died leaving the Petitioner as his widow who has lready in possession of said disputed house. The learned Magistrate after disposal of criminal case, had no power to pass any order on the application of the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 changing the Supurdgi of her deceased husband. The impugned order is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition.
Issue notice to opposite parties No. 3 and 4 to file counter affidavit within four weeks. The learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the said period of four weeks.
List immediately thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned order dated 20.2.2010, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Hardoi by which he has directed the Station House Officer of Police Station concerned to take over the possession of the disputed house from Samundara Devi (Petitioner) and to hand over the possession of said house to any proper person in Supurdgi as well as the impugned order dated 30.8.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-1, Hardoi in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2010 filed by the Petitioner, confirming the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, will remain stayed.