SMT. GUDDI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1189 of 2025

Smt. Guddi Devi
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                :   Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
Counsel for Respondent(s)                :   G.A., Gorakh Nath Shukla

Court No. - 89
                      HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and
Sri Gorakh Nath Shukla, learned Counsel for the private respondent, and Sri
K.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to set aside the
impugned order dated 17.12.2024, passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Farrukhabad, in Criminal Revision No. 129 of
2024 (Guddi Devi vs. Bablu and others) (Annexure No. 1 to this petition), as
well as the impugned order dated 20.06.2024, passed by respondent no. 2,
i.e., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Farrukhabad, in Case No.
14748 of 2019 (Guddi Devi vs. Bablu and another), under Section 133(1)
Cr.P.C. (Annexure No. 2 to this petition). The petitioner has further prayed
for issuance of a direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to take appropriate
steps for removal of the encroachment made by respondent nos. 4 and 5 over
the public passage within such stipulated period as may be fixed by this
Hon'ble Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had moved an
application on 22.4.2016 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar,
District Farrukhabad, alleging that a five-foot-wide public passage passing in
front of his house had been encroached upon by the respondents by
constructing a toilet, thereby occupying three feet of the road and leaving
only two feet available for passage. On the basis of the said application,
proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were initiated, and an order was
passed on 30.7.2016 in Case No.6 of 2016. The learned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate observed that the alleged construction had not encroached upon
                                                           A227 No. 1189 of 2025
                                2


the public passage and that there was no public obstruction. Aggrieved by
the order dated 30.7.2016, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 6
of 2018 (Guddi Devi vs. Bablu and others). The said order was set aside by
the revisional court vide order dated 21.12.2018 and the matter was
remanded back with certain observations. It was observed that the learned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate had failed to consider the report submitted by the
Junior Engineer and had not followed the due procedure of summoning him
for cross-examination as mandated under Section 139 Cr.P.C. Thereafter,
when the matter was reheard by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in
Case No.14748 of 2019 (Guddi Devi vs. Bablu and another), the learned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, despite the directions issued in Criminal
Revision No. 6 of 2018, again passed an order observing that there was no
construction upon the public passage. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in order to extend
undue benefit to the respondents, deliberately ignored the report submitted
by the Junior Engineer and passed the impugned order in utter violation of
the directions of the revisional court. It was further submitted that the order
dated 26.2.2024 passed in Case No.14748 of 2019 is patently illegal, having
been passed without complying with the directions issued in Criminal
Revision No.6 of 2018.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted
that the spot was personally inspected by the learned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, who observed that no construction was found during such
inspection. It was further submitted that a categorical finding had been
recorded that the alleged construction was not causing any obstruction to the
public passage, and therefore, the findings do not suffer from any perversity.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated
26.02.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District
Farrukhabad.

6. It is apparent that specific observations were made by the Additional
Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2018, wherein it was noted
that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had neither considered the report
submitted by the Junior Engineer nor taken any steps to summon him for
recording his statement. In view of these observations, the order dated
30.7.2016 was set aside in criminal revision, and the matter was remanded
with a direction to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made in the
                                                                                               A227 No. 1189 of 2025
                                                                    3


                                    revision. However, the impugned order dated 26.2.2024 clearly reflects that
                                    the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, without complying with the
                                    directions issued in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2018, has passed the order
                                    solely on the basis of his personal inspection. Prima facie, the order appears
                                    to have been passed in deliberate disregard of the directions of the revisional
                                    court.

                                    7. Accordingly, the order dated 26.2.2024 is unsustainable in law and is
                                    liable to be set aside. The same is hereby set aside and the writ petition is
                                    allowed. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District
                                    Farrukhabad, is directed to restore the proceedings in Case No.14748 of
                                    2019 (Guddi Devi vs. Bablu and another) and to pass a fresh order strictly in
                                    accordance with the directions issued in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2018, as
                                    well as in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 133
                                    Cr.P.C. It is further observed that in the event of failure to comply with the
                                    directions issued in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2018, as well as in this order,
                                    such conduct shall be viewed seriously and may amount to contempt,
                                    making the concerned authority liable to face appropriate legal
                                    consequences.

                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Mukesh
                                                                                              (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad