Allahabad High Court
Bhuwanesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. & 28 Others on 2 November, 2017
Bench: Prabhat Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2357 of 2013
Revisionist :- Bhuwanesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 28 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- A.B. Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Rajesh Kumar
Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J
1.
Heard Sri A.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. None responds on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 29.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the impugned order 10.7.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in complaint case no.900 of 2013 (Bhuwanesh Vs. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and others) is erroneous, illegal and same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the complaint of the revisionist Bhuwanesh Kumar the names of all the opposite parties viz. 2 to 29 were mentioned and witnesses C.W.2 Badri Prasad and C.W.3 Lal Singh in their statements recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have also named all the accused persons.
3. Moreover, in the counter affidavit sworn by the deponent Kalyan Singh in paragraph 5 it has been mentioned that Rs.20,000/- was paid to the complainant as a compensation as a result of compromise between both the parties and extract (photocopy) of general diary dated 16.10.2012 has also been filed in support thereof.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that no compromise took place between both the parties and mention of receiving of compensation as a result of compromise between both the parties proves the case of the revisionist.
5. The applicant/revisionist Bhuwanesh Kumar has initially moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as complaint vide order dated 30.1.2013 of the court concerned. In the application, applicant Bhuwanesh has stated that his ancestral agricultural land plot no.215, area admeasuring 0.6760 hectare (about 10 bighas) is situated in Qsba Aliganj, Tehsil Aonla, District Bareilly. The names of Badri Prasad, Devki Nandan sons of late Midhai Lal, Manish Kumar (minor), Avnish Kumar (minor) sons of Rajesh guardian and natural mother Smt. Suman and Smt. Suman wife of late Rajesh were also entered as bhumidhar with transferable right category no.1 as co-tenure holders. At the time of incident in the aforesaid agricultural land the crops of paddy and millet were present.
6. Opposite party no.1 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and opposite party no.2 Amarish Kumar Agrawal resident of Qsba and Police Sation Aliganj had an evil eye up on the crops. It has been mentioned in the application that the applicant/complainant has approached the local police and administration of District Bareilly and has also presented an application one Misc. Case No.179 of 2011 (Badri Prasad and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others) was pending before the court of the learned District Judge, Bareilly.
7. On date 16.10.2012 at about 3:00 P.M. at the instigation of local M.L.A. Sri Dharmpal Singh and on the oral orders of the District Magistrate, Bareilly the opposite party nos.1 to 30 alongwith S.D.M., Aonla (R.N. Pandey) opposite party no.31 and Circle Officer, Aonla opposite party no.32, Station Officer, Aliganj opposite party no.33 and 30-40 other persons have harvested the crops of paddy and millet; standing in the agricultural fields and carried away in a tractor owned by Dadar son of Sikandar. Due to which the applicant/ complainant suffered irreparable loss. The applicant/complainant has also sent telegram and registered letter and personal letter to the Senior Officers of Local Police as well as Administrative Officers and State Government but no action was taken against the opposite parties.
8. The complainant Bhuwanesh was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses C.W. 1 Nanhe Lal, C.W.2 Badri Prasad and C.W.3 Lal Singh were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
9. Learned trial court has also perused the extracts of Khasra and Khatauni.
10. While recording the findings, the learned trial court has specifically mentioned that complainant Bhuwanesh in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has stated on oath that his agricultural land was situated in agricultural plot no.215, Aliganj where several persons arrange and organize fare. On date 16 in the month of Kwar at about 3:00 P.M. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and Amarish Kumar Agrawal have cut the paddy crops which was standing in his agricultural plot admeasuring 10 bighas and thereafter the agricultural field was ploughed by the tractor and also organized fare over there. C.W. 1 Nanhe Lal and C.W. 2 Badri Prasad have also in their statements recorded under Sections 202 Cr.P.C. named Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and Amarish Kumar Agrawal and have also assigned the above role to them. C.W.2 Badri Prasad witness of the complainant has also named other persons in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
11. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly after marshalling the oral and documentary evidence available has arrived at this conclusion that prima facie case under Sections 427, 447 I.P.C. is constituted against the opposite party no.1 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and opposite party no.2 Amarish Kumar Agrawal. It has been clearly and specifically held in the impugned order that other opposite parties did not have any role in the aforesaid act. Neither the complainant nor his witnesses had named any other of them. Therefore, no prima facie case is constituted against rest of the opposite parties. Therefore, opposite parties Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and Amarish Kumar Agrawal were summoned under Sections 427, 447 I.P.C. and it was concluded that as regards the rest of the opposite party nos. 3 to 33; there were no sufficient reasons to summon them.
12. I have gone through the statement of the applicant/complainant Bhuwanesh Kumar recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. wherein the names of Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and Amarish Kumar Agrawal are only mentioned. Statements of witnesses C.W. 1 Nanhe Lal recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. also reveals that the names of Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and Amarish Kumar Agrawal. Although; it has also been mentioned in the statement that other persons were also present and alongwith 2 or 3 police vehicles were also plying over there. Since the applicant/complainant has not named other persons the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity.
13. The criminal revision lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.11.2017
S.Sharma
