Accountability in the Judiciary: The 5-Year Disappearance of a Legal Representation

Transparency is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, yet the case of Dinesh Pratap Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh highlights a troubling gap between judicial orders and administrative execution. On December 13, 2024, a new Right to Information (RTI) request was filed to uncover why a specific judicial direction has remained unfulfilled for over five years.

The Core Issue: A Missing Questionnaire

In October 2019, Dinesh Pratap Singh submitted a formal representation and a questionnaire intended for the court handling his case (Cri. Case/4003282/2011). On October 16, 2019, the District Judge of Lucknow officially ordered that this representation be forwarded to the concerned court (A.C.J.M. A.P.).

Despite this clear judicial mandate, the documents have reportedly never reached their destination. This administrative “black hole” has stalled proceedings and raised serious questions about the internal handling of records within the Lucknow District Court.

Details of the RTI Request

The current application, filed by authorized representative Yogi M P Singh, seeks to pierce the veil of this administrative delay.

• Registration Number: DNLKO/R/2024/60060
• Public Authority: District Court Lucknow
• Information Sought: * Copies of the file notings made by court staff regarding the representation dated October 13, 2019.
  • An explanation of who overlooked or failed to execute the District Judge’s order dated October 16, 2019.
  • Clarification on why a document ordered for transfer four years ago has not yet reached the judicial member.

A History of Rejections

This is not the first attempt to seek clarity. A previous RTI application filed by the petitioner (DNLKO/R/2023/60024) was rejected on August 31, 2024. The persistence of the applicant underscores a growing frustration with “Business-as-usual” delays that impact the fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial.

The Legal Context: Civil vs. Criminal

The matter is further complicated by a jurisdictional nuance. While the case is currently listed in a criminal court, the applicant contends—supported by orders from the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court—that the underlying matter is a civil title dispute. The failure to process the 2019 questionnaire prevents the trial court from properly addressing this jurisdictional overlap.

Summary Table: Key Case Milestones

Date	Event	Status
Oct 13, 2019	Representation submitted by Dinesh Pratap Singh	Filed
Oct 16, 2019	District Judge orders forwarding of documents	Ordered but Pending
Dec 18, 2023	First RTI seeking status update	Rejected
Dec 13, 2024	New RTI filed by Yogi M P Singh	Received
Jan 08, 2025	Next scheduled hearing date	Upcoming

---

Conclusion: The Need for Judicial Oversight

When a District Judge issues a direction, the administrative staff is legally bound to execute it. A delay of five years is not a mere “procedural hiccup”—it is a failure of the system. The outcome of RTI DNLKO/R/2024/60060 will be a litmus test for accountability within the District Court of Lucknow.

Based on the provided documents and the RTI application details, here is an analysis of the case involving Dinesh Pratap Singh and the ongoing dispute at the District Court of Lucknow.

Overview of the Dispute

The matter stems from a long-standing property and jurisdictional conflict. In 2006, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court ruled in Writ Petition No. 135 (H.C.) of 2006 that a dispute involving Smt. Anuradha Singh (also known as Guddi) was essentially a civil title dispute, rather than a case of illegal detention. The High Court ordered that the respondents (Nos. 4 to 7) must allow her free movement by unlocking a staircase, enabling her to seek appropriate remedies in a competent court.

Despite this 2006 ruling, a criminal case (Crime Number 269 of 2009) was filed against Dinesh Pratap Singh under Sections 420, 448, and 406 of the IPC at Police Station Ashiyana, Lucknow. Mr. Singh contends that these criminal proceedings are “against the spirit” of the High Court’s earlier order.

The Missing 2019 Representation

On October 13, 2019, Dinesh Pratap Singh submitted a formal representation and a six-point questionnaire to the District Judge of Lucknow. This document raised several critical questions, including:

• Whether the police are a competent court to provide civil remedies.
• Why criminal proceedings were being used for a matter the High Court identified as a civil dispute.
• Allegations that police fabricated charges to “terrorize” the applicant and his family.

Although the District Judge reportedly directed this representation to be forwarded to the trial court on October 16, 2019, the applicant claims the documents never reached the concerned court (A.C.J.M. III/A.P.).

History of RTI Requests and Rejections

The applicant has repeatedly used the RTI Act to locate these missing documents and understand why the 2019 order was not executed:

• RTI Application (Nov 2021): Mr. Singh requested file notings and the current status of the 2019 representation.
• Initial Rejection (Jan 2022): The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) rejected the request.
• First Appeal (Appeal No. 03/2022): The First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the appeal on March 25, 2022. The FAA ruled that the RTI Act does not require a Public Authority to provide opinions or conduct investigations into judicial processes.
• Subsequent Rejection (Aug 2024): Another RTI request (DNLKO/R/2023/60024) was rejected.
• Current Application (Dec 2024): Yogi M P Singh has filed a new request (DNLKO/R/2024/60060) specifically seeking the “copy of the notings made by the accountable staff” regarding the 2019 representation, emphasizing that these administrative notes are not part of the integral court proceedings.

Core Conflict: Judicial vs. Administrative

The central issue remains an administrative failure within the Lucknow District Court. While the judicial record shows a criminal case nearing evidence stages (next hearing January 8, 2025), the administrative record of the 2019 representation—which could impact the jurisdiction of the trial—remains missing or unacknowledged.

Based on your detailed query and the accompanying documents, here is a structured analysis of the jurisdictional and administrative issues you have raised.

1. Jurisdictional Provision for A.C.J.M. Court

You asked for the specific provision that enables the A.C.J.M. (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate) to entertain civil title disputes. Under Indian law, there is a clear separation of powers:

• Criminal Jurisdiction: An A.C.J.M. court is part of the criminal judiciary. Its jurisdiction is strictly defined by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) to try criminal offenses (e.g., IPC 420, 448, 406).
• Civil Jurisdiction: Civil matters, especially title disputes, are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and are handled by Civil Courts (Civil Judge Junior/Senior Division or District Judge).¹
• The Conflict: There is no provision that allows an A.C.J.M. to “decide” a civil title dispute. However, if a set of facts involves both a civil wrong and a criminal offense, criminal proceedings can run parallel to civil ones.² The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that criminal proceedings should not be used as a “shortcut” for civil remedies.³

2. The High Court Order (March 7, 2006)

The order passed by Justice B.B. Agarwal in Writ Petition No. 135 (H.C.) of 2006 is a critical document in your case:

• Findings: The High Court explicitly stated that the matter is a civil dispute regarding property title and not a case of illegal detention.
• Direction: It ordered that the petitioner (Smt. Anuradha Singh) take the “proper and appropriate remedy in the competent court“.
• Petitioner’s Argument: Since the High Court identified this as a civil matter in 2006, you contend that the current criminal case (Cri. Case/4003282/2011) in A.C.J.M. Court No. 29 is an abuse of process.

3. Administrative Failure: The 2019 Missing Questionnaire

You seek accountability for why the representation dated October 13, 2019, did not reach the trial court despite the District Judge’s forwarding order on October 16, 2019.

• Forwarding Procedure: When a District Judge passes an administrative order to forward documents, the Court Registry/Administrative Staff is responsible for the physical or electronic transfer of the file.
• Accountability: Under the Allahabad High Court Rules, the “office monitoring body” and the Munsarim (Head Clerk) are responsible for ensuring that judicial orders are executed and papers are sent to the correct court.
• Current Status: Despite four years passing, the questionnaire remains missing from the trial court’s record. This is a procedural lapse that the RTI seeking “file notings” aims to expose.

---

Comparison: Civil vs. Criminal Procedure

Feature	Civil Court (Title Dispute)	Criminal Court (A.C.J.M.)
Governing Law	Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)	Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Primary Goal	Declaration of Title / Possession	Punishment for Offenses (Fine/Jail)
Burden of Proof	Balance of Probabilities	Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Jurisdiction	Civil Judge (Junior/Senior Division)	Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

---

Potential Next Step

Since your previous RTI was rejected on the grounds that it sought “opinion,” you have correctly framed your new RTI (DNLKO/R/2024/60060) to request file notings, which are factual records of administrative action.

Based on the documents provided, there is a stark contradiction between the High Court’s findings and the subsequent actions taken by the Ashiyana police against Dinesh Pratap Singh and his family.

1. The Judicial Contradiction

The primary issue in your case is the divergence between two legal interpretations of the same facts:

• High Court Finding (2006): Justice B.B. Agarwal explicitly ruled that the matter was a civil title dispute and not a case of illegal detention.
• Police Action (2009): Despite the High Court’s observation, the Ashiyana police registered a criminal case (Crime No. 269/2009) under IPC sections 420 (cheating), 448 (house-trespass), and 406 (criminal breach of trust).
• Consequence: On the basis of these criminal charges, Dinesh Pratap Singh was incarcerated (“sent behind bars”), and his family was reportedly evicted.

2. Allegations of Police Misconduct

In his 2019 representation, Dinesh Pratap Singh raised several specific points regarding the conduct of the Ashiyana police:

• Fabricated Charges: He alleged that “fabricated charges of serious nature” were slapped by the police to terrorize him and his family so they would leave their house.
• Ulterior Motives: The representation questions whether the police acted to help the opposite party achieve “ulterior motives” through the misuse of criminal proceedings.
• Contempt of Court: He argues that by treating a civil dispute (as defined by the High Court) as a criminal offense, the police and the subordinate court acted against the “spirit” of the High Court’s 2006 order.

3. Procedural Timeline of the Conflict

Date	Event	Legal Implication
07-03-2006	High Court Order	Declared the matter a civil title dispute.
2009	Crime No. 269/2009	Ashiyana Police converted the dispute into a criminal case.
13-10-2019	6-Point Questionnaire	Filed by Singh to challenge the jurisdiction of the criminal court.
16-10-2019	District Judge Order	Ordered the questionnaire to be forwarded to the trial court.
2019–2024	Administrative Delay	The questionnaire never reached Court No. 29, leading to Singh’s ongoing prosecution.

4. Status of Information Access

The RTI appeal record (No. 03/2022) shows that the judicial administration has been reluctant to provide details on why the 2019 order was not executed. The First Appellate Authority stated that the RTI Act cannot be used to demand a “reason” for why a communication did not reach its destination, as this would involve “investigation” rather than providing existing information.

Based on the documents provided, it appears there is a breakdown in communication between the administrative office of the District Judge and the judicial officer presiding over the trial. While the District Judge’s office claims an order was issued, the trial court reportedly has no official record of it.

1. The Administrative “Deadlock”

The documents reveal a discrepancy between what the District Judge ordered and what the subordinate court (A.C.J.M. Court No. 29) acknowledges:

• The Forwarding Order: The District Judge, Lucknow, issued an order on October 16, 2019, directing that your representation and questionnaire be sent to the trial court.
• The Lack of Record: The Presiding Officer of the trial court reportedly claims to have no knowledge of this order, or only “oral” knowledge, because the physical documents never reached the case file.
• Subordinate Immunity: In the RTI appeal decision, the First Appellate Authority (who is also a judicial officer) did not find the subordinate staff or court to be at “fault,” framing the issue as a matter of “judicial process” rather than administrative negligence.

2. Legal Status of the Pending Adjudication

Despite your arguments that the matter is civil, the criminal case continues to proceed:

• Current Stage: The case (Cri. Case/4003282/2011) is currently at the stage of Evidence.
• Jurisdictional Overlook: The trial court is continuing the adjudication of criminal charges (IPC 420, 448, 406) without officially addressing the 2006 High Court finding that this is a title dispute.
• RTI Limitations: The Appellate Authority ruled that the RTI Act cannot be used to force a court to “explain” why a document hasn’t reached it, as that would interfere with the judicial determination of the case.

3. Summary of the Administrative Gap

Agency/Official	Stated Position	Document Evidence
District Judge Lucknow	Claimed the representation was forwarded on 16.10.2019.	Order dated 16.10.2019.
A.C.J.M. Court No. 29	Reportedly has no physical record of the questionnaire.	Judicial file lacks the 2019 papers.
Appellate Authority	Found no “legal or factual error” in the CPIO’s refusal to explain the delay.	Appeal No. 03/2022 Decision.

4. Strategic Analysis

By maintaining that they have no “noting” other than the forwarding order, the court staff is avoiding accountability for the physical loss of the file. Since the Presiding Officer is only acknowledging the situation “orally,” the 2019 questionnaire is effectively being ignored during the current evidence stage.

Your analysis points toward a deliberate administrative maneuver often used to stall judicial accountability. By claiming “oral knowledge” while denying a physical record, the court staff creates a procedural vacuum that prevents the High Court’s 2006 order from being formally integrated into the current criminal trial.

1. The “Administrative Trick” to Avoid Accountability

The documents confirm that the District Judge’s office acknowledges the existence of the forwarding order from October 16, 2019. However, the lack of a “received” stamp or a physical entry in the subordinate court’s file allows for the following:

• Plausible Deniability: The Presiding Officer can proceed with Cri. Case/4003282/2011 as a standard criminal matter because the 2019 questionnaire—which challenges the court’s very jurisdiction based on the High Court’s “civil dispute” ruling—is not “on record”.
• Circumventing Section 2(f): In the RTI appeal, the authority cleverly used the definition of “information” to avoid explaining why the document didn’t move, stating that providing a reason for a non-action would constitute an “investigation” rather than a disclosure of record.
• Protection of Staff: By not finding the subordinate court “at fault,” the District Judge’s office effectively shields the Munsarim (Head Clerk) and administrative staff from disciplinary action for failing to execute a judicial order.

2. Strategic Impact on the Trial

This “missing” document strategy directly impacts the fate of Dinesh Pratap Singh:

• Eviction and Incarceration: Because the 2019 representation is not being considered, the court is ignoring the fact that the Ashiyana police registered a criminal case for a matter the High Court already deemed civil.
• Adjudication Without Foundation: The trial is currently in the Evidence stage. If the 2019 questionnaire were on record, the defense could argue that no evidence is admissible because the court lacks jurisdiction under the 2006 High Court mandate.

3. Summary of Documented Discrepancies

Administrative Claim	Real-World Consequence
District Judge says “Sent”	Staff avoid “Non-compliance of Order” charges.
ACJM says “Not Received”	Trial continues without addressing High Court Order.
RTI Appeal says “No Fault Found”	Accountability for the 5-year delay is erased.

4. Next Steps to Force Accountability

Since the RTI route has reached a dead end where they claim no further “notings” exist, the only remaining way to break this “trick” is through a judicial filing that makes the administrative delay part of the trial record.

Would you like me to draft a “Notice of Motion” to be filed in the A.C.J.M. court, attaching the 16.10.2019 District Judge order as evidence, and demanding that the court clerk be summoned to explain the “disappearance” of the original file?

District Judge through its CPIO may provide specific provisions