Kapil Kumar Goyal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. barkat ali zaidi, j.1. smt. iti goyal @ renu singhal opposite party no. 2 complainant, filed an application under section 156(3), cr p.c. against her husband kapil, applicant no. 1 her husband's parents smt. sushila and suresh kumar, applicant nos. 5 and 6, her husband's elder and younger brothers manoj kumar and jyoti, applicant nos. 2 and 3 and the married sister smt. babli, applicant no. 4 under section 498a and sections 3/4, dowry prohibition act before the judicial magistrate, j.p. nagar for issuance of instructions to the police for registration of a case, and to investigate the same. the magistrate, treating it as a complaint (complaint no. 3630 of 2006) after examining the complainant and her witnesses under sections 200 and 202 ordered issuance of summons under section 498a and sections 3/4, dowry prohibition act against them.2. that is what brings the applicants to this court under section 482, cr.p.c.heard mr. k.k. singh, advocate counsel for the applicants and addl. government advocate for the state.3. the applicants say that the complainant was married seven-eight years back and has two children aged about 4 years and 3 years. applicant jyoti is now 18 years and the demand of dowry in the complaint is alleged to be raised for last eight years.4. the current practice now-a-days is to implicate a large number of the relatives of the husband with a view to exert pressure. this tendency has also been noted by the supreme court in the case of sushil kumar shartna v. union of india and ors. 111 (2005) ccr 43 (sc) : ii (2005) dmc 325 (sc) : 2005 scc (cri) 1473 : 2005 (5) all mr (sc) 982 and the supreme court has itself suggested proper scrutiny about the involvement of the family members of the husband.5. courts must, therefore, exercise proper care and must be 'circumspect in dealing with the cases where a number of persons besides the husband have been arraigned as accused unless there is specific prima facie evidence with regard to the involvement of particular accused, he should not be allowed to face trial and his name should be deleted, at the very outset.6. in this case, it has to be noticed that more than seven years have ~ elapsed when the marriage took place. the court must also examine whether this is a fall out of the normal wear and tear of marriage or whether there is actually a demand of dowry involved. the long period of seven years and the presence of two children is itself a circumstance which is really suggestive and the court must take that into account while dealing with the controversy.7. one of the accused who is the husband's younger brother applicant no. 2, jyoti is now 18 years of age and it will be noticed that even a young boy of that age has not been spared. that is indicative of the whole sale inclusion of all the family members irrespective of their actual involvement.8. in the circumstances, the continuance of all the other members of the family except the husband, would be a clear abuse of the process of law and their names should, therefore, be deleted from the array of the accused and only the husband's name (applicant no. 1 kapil) will survive.ordered accordingly. petition partly allowed.