Smt. Nahid Shamsi v. State Of U.P. And Anr.

Court No. - 21 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1651 of 2011

Revisionist :- Smt. Nahid Shamsi

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ikram Ahmad

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Amit Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh,J.

Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2, is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This criminal revision is preferred against the order dated 24.03.2011 passed by City Magistrate, Pilibhit in Case No.03 of 2009 (Smt. Indra C.J. Vs. Smt. Nahid Shamsi), under Sections 145(1) and 146 (1) Cr.P.C., P.S. Sungarhi, District- Pilibhit, whereby the learned Magistrate found the possession of Smt. Indra C.J. on disputed house and the police was directed to ensure that Smt. Indra C.J. is put into possession within a week. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

That the disputed house as bounded in the police report dated 11.11.2009 was transferred by Smt. Nahid Shamsi on 26.02.2007 for a sale consideration in favour of Smt. Indra C.J. After execution of sale deed some dispute arose between seller and purchaser and Suit No. 192 of 2009 (Smt. Nahid Shamsi Vs. Smt. Indra C.J.) was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pilibhit which is pending for decision. In the meantime, Smt. Nahid Shamshi in the last week of October 2009 had taken possession of the disputed house by breaking the lock and also looting valuable belongings. A first information report as Case Crime No.2239 of 2009, under Sections 448, 380 IPC was lodged by Smt. Indra C.J. at P.S. Sunigarhi, District Pilibhit. As there was a dispute of possession between the parties, the police reported the matter to the City Magistrate and he took cognizance and interim order dated 17.11.2009 of seizure and attachment of house was passed. After hearing the parties, the learned City Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 24.03.2011 directing the police concerned to put Smt. Indra C.J. in possession of the disputed house.

Neutral Citation No. - 2015:AHC:120583

1

Aggrieved by the order the revisionist has preferred this revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that order passed by the learned City Magistrate is bad at law but during the course of argument it was admitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the original suit is pending for decision before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pilibhit. The copy of the plaint is on record and in paragraph 21 of the plaint the execution of sale deed had been admitted by the revisionist with averment that it was without consideration. On query, the learned counsel for the revisionist could not explain the reason for execution of sale deed without consideration. The sale deed dated 26.02.2007 is registered document and there is mentioned of delivery of possession of house in dispute on the date of registration of the deed. Besides this learned City Magistrate has opined that as per police report and evidence available before him in proceeding under Section

145 Cr.P.C., prima facie, Smt. Indira C.J. got possession of house in suit after execution of sale deed. Somewhere in last week of October, 2009 when she was away from district, lock was broken and attempt was made on behalf of the revisionist to enter into the possession.The finding of fact does not appear perverse. In view of above, there is nothing on record to show that the impugned order suffer from any illegality or perversity. The impugned order is within jurisdiction. In the result, the revision is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.

Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.

Order Date :- 21.8.2015 A.Kr.*

2