Ram Sahu vs State of U.P.& Anr.

Kundan Singh, J.—List has been revised. Nobody is present on behalf of the applicant as well as for opposite party No. 2.

2.1 perused the relevant papers with the help of learned Additional Government Advocate.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 1561986 passed by the XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, allowing Criminal Revision No. 289 of 1983, Ayodhya Prasad Dhiman v. State and another, and setting aside the order dated 2991983 passed by the City Magistrate, Kanpur in Criminal Case No. 54/B of 1983, Shriram Sahu v. Ayodhya Prasad, under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.), police station Gwaltoli, district Kanpur.

The proceedings under Sections 145/146, Cr. P.C. were started at the instance of the Principal of Late Yashoda Devi Subhash Pragati Vidya Mandir Harijan Vidyalaya (for short ''the vidyalaya'') in respect of the building of the vidyalaya, being No. 12/471 and 12/447 situated at Gwaltoli, Police Station Gwaltoli, Kanpur.

The learned City Magistrate, Kanpur, came to conclusion that there was no dispute regarding the building of the vidyalaya, but it was a dispute between the committees of management of the vidyalaya; each of them claiming to be in possession of the vidyalaya. Hence, the learned Magistrate passed the order directing the District Harijan Welfare Officer to take over the management of the vidyalaya till he received direction regarding the management by Government or any Court. He also directed to allow the lady teachers, who were engaged in teaching in the vidyalaya and had required qualification they should not be removed without any cause, if there is any charge of irregularity on the part of any lady teacher, in that case, action may be taken according to law against her after serving her with charge sheet and affording opportunity of hearing. He also directed to get repaired oneside wall of the vidyalaya immediately. After giving other necessary directions, he directed to open the school for the study of the children. If any unwanted antisocial element interferes, the Court should be informed. The proceedings under Sections 1 45/146, Cr. P.C. were dropped by hisr order and he directed certain persons to maintain peace. Raj Narain and two others, who were held responsible for creating dispute, were directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds and proceedings under Sections 107/116, Cr. P.C. may be initiated against them.

Being aggrieved by the order of the City Magistrate, Opposite Party No. 2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 289 of 1993 before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur, which came for hearing and disposal before XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, who, by his order dated 1561985, has set aside the order of the City Magistrate, Kanpur, as stated above, and directed the Harijan Welfare Officer not to interfere in respect of the management of the vidyalaya. All the papers were directed to be handed over to opposite party No. 2.

This Court, while admitting the revision on 2061985 stayed the operation of the order deted 15061985 passed by the XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur. It, therefore, appears that the order of the learned Magistrate is in operation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the revisional jurisdiction entered into the evidence on record and reversed the finding, holding that the City Magistrate had no jurisdiction to start proceedings under Section 145/146, Cr. PC. In my opinion at the most the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have directed the City Magistrate to decide the case afresh in the, light of the direction, if any, issued. It was not proper for him to reverse the findings hold one of the parties to be legally entitled for the possession unless that matter had already been decided by the Court of law or by any authority. The matter was also pending before the XIV learned Additional Munsif, Kanpur in Original Suit No. 683 of 1983 and interim order had also been passed in that case. The learned Magistrate could have been directed to pass the orders in compliance of the interim order passed in the original suit. The learned Magistrate has made a temporary or interim arrangement of the vidyalaya so that the study of the students may not be adversely affected by the dispute going on between the two committees of management of the vidyalaya.

In the facts and circumstances I do not find that the Magistrate had committed any illegality in issuing direction to the District Harijan Welfare Officer to maintain the vidyalaya for the time being. In view of the discussion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, appears to have exceeded his jurisdiction in interfering with the order passed by the learned City Magistrate, Kanpur. The order passed by the learned XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

Accordingly the revision is allowed, order dated 1561985 passed by the learned XIV Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Criminal Revision No. 289 of 1983, Ayodhya Prasad Dhiman v. State of U.P and another, is set aside and the order passed by the learned City Magistrate, Kanpur, dated 2991983 is affirmed.

Revision allowed.