Allahabad High Court
Mishri Lal And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35190 of 2013
Applicant :- Mishri Lal And 8 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Raj Yadav,A. Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Learned counsel for the applicants has filed supplementary affidavit wherewith order dated 4.4.2019 of compromise passed by Up Sanchalak, Chakbandi, Chitrakoot is annexed, the same is taken on record.
Sri Abhay Raj Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri A.D. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
The present application has been filed with a prayer to allow the application and set aside the cognizance order dated 28.5.2013 passed in Case No. 324 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 50 of 2013, under Sections 379, 506 and 411 IPC, P.S. Mau, District Chitrakoot and further to quash the charge sheet dated 21.5.2013 filed in Case Crime No. 50 of 2013 under the above mentioned sections as well as the entire proceeding of Case No. 324 of 2013.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that on the basis of order dated 4.4.2019 passed by Up Sanchalak, Chakbandi, Chitrakoot, compromise has been entered into between the parties on the basis of which accused-applicants are owners of the property in dispute and were also its owners even on the date of occurrence, hence offence under Section 379, 506 and 411, which are mentioned in the F.I.R., are not made out. Investigating Officer has not conducted in-depth investigation and has submitted charge sheet in perfunctory manner, which needs to be quashed it being a malicious prosecution.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of quashing the aforesaid procedings.
I have gone through the F.I.R.. In F.I.R., it has been recorded that in the intervening night of 30/31.3.2013 accused applicants came to the field of opposite party no. 2 being Gata No. 1088 area 0.690 hectare in which there was crop of wheat sown, which was cut by them stealthily and the same was taken away. It was further prayed in the F.I.R. that the said crop be restored to the opposite party no. 2. After investigation made by the Investigating Officer, in this case, charge sheet has been submitted. The statements which have been recorded by the I.O. cannot be disbelieved in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
The version of the learned counsel for the applicants that the accused-applicants were owner of the land in dispute on the date of occurrence, from which, the opposite party no. 2 has stated that his crop had been cut and did not belong to opposite party no. 2, hence offence u/s 379, 506 and 411 is not made out. Finding on this fact can only be given by the trial court after taking into consideration the evidence being relied upon by the accused-applicant. At this stage on the basis of said evidence this Court does not have jurisdiction to hold that the said land did not belong to the opposite party no. 2 as the same would require trial. It cannot be said that cognizable offence is made out.
From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9. The disputed defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
However, the applicants may approach the trial court to seek discharge within 30 days, if so advised, and before the said forum, they may raise all the pleas which have been taken by them here. If such application is made, the same shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with law.
For a period of 30 days from the date of order, no coercive action shall be taken. But if the accused do not appear before the Committal court, the said court shall take coercive steps to procure their attendance.
With the above direction, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019/A.P. Pandey
