Shri Ram And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:105375
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a subordinate court has passed an order under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. based on an evaluation of the circumstances pertaining to a dispute, the High Court will not interfere with that order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the disputed questions of fact underlying such discretionary orders fall outside the scope of supervisory jurisdiction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Devesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. None has appeared on behalf of the private respondents.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following main prayer :-
"(a) To set aside the impugned orders dated 10.05.2024 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate Kushinagar at Padrauna in case No. T202405440103690 under section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. and 146(1) Cr.P.C. and order dated 22.08.2025 passed by Additional District and Session Judge Court No.3 Kushinagar at Padrauna in criminal revision No.127 of 2024 (Shri Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and others)."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land of the petitioners was attached by SDM, Padrauna, District Kushinagar in Case No.3690 of 2024 under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. on 10.5.2024. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.5.2024, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.127 of 2024 (Shri Ram vs. State of U.P. & Anr.), which too was dismissed on 22.8.2025.
4. At the very outset, it is relevant to mention that the order passed under Section 146(1) Cr.P.C. is passed by the concerned Executive Magistrate by evaluating the prevailing circumstances pertaining to the dispute. Those disputed questions cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders passed by both courts.
4. However, the concerned SDM, Padrauna, District Kushinagar is directed to expedite the proceeding of Case No.3690 of 2024 and to decide it in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from today.
5. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the petition is disposed of.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
May 7, 2026
SK
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free