Allahabad High Court
Gaya Prasad And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25956 of 2019
Applicant :- Gaya Prasad And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Singh Chauhan,Neelam Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants with a prayer for quashing of the charge sheet dated 18.12.2018, whereby learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on 11.02.2019 in Case No. 4117 of 2019 (State Versus Ravi Bansal & others) Case Crime No. 1188 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 295, 297, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.
Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicants are neither named in first information report nor they are of any concern with alleged offence, whereas their names have been taken for the first time by Dinesh Kushwaha and this was owning to assumption by Dinesh Kushwaha. There is no execution of any deed by accused applicants for any land belonging to Udainath Ji Maharaj Mandir Nath Ka Bagh. Hence, this application.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer with this contention that there is statement of Tehsildar Mahendra Kumar corroborated by statement of Lekhpal Dinesh Chand Gola, Revenue Inspector Govind Narain Shukla and independent witness Dinesh Kushwaha, who in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has categorically said that land of Udainath Ji Maharaj Mandir Nath Ka Bagh was illegally transferred in year 2011-12 by Ravi Bansal by way of making a society including those named accused persons written in first information report and name of present applicant is there in statement of Dinesh Kushwaha. Hence, evidence for filing of charge sheet is there.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through material placed on record, it is apparent that this report was got lodged upon report of Rajendra Prasad Sharma against Ravi Bansal and 26 other persons with specific accusation that Ravi Bansal, a land grabber, in connivance with those other named accused persons and many others entered in conspiracy for getting land of that Udainath Ji Maharaj Mandir Nath Ka Bagh transferred, entered in various fraudulent fact and thereby did transfer of land without having any right over it. This fraud was committed by those named accused persons and land has been usurped. In investigation statement of Tehsildar Mahendra Kumar was got recorded, in which he has categorically said that Arazi No. 543 of area 1.5330 hectare was entered in Khatauni of Fasli Year 1424-1429 in the name of Udainath Ji Maharaj and nobody was having any right to transfer it even then land was transferred and 126 house were constructed thereat. Hence, this matter was got enquired and investigated by a team of revenue officers. Statement of Lekhpal Dinesh Chand Gola and Revenue Inspector Govind Narain Shukla is there under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which the same contention with construction of 126 house over above land of Udainath Ji Maharaj Mandir has been mentioned and this all has been constructed under garb of registered sale deed executed fraudulently. This has further been reiterated in statement of Dinesh Kushwaha. The address of present applicants has been given to be resident of Nath Ka Bagh. Once this land of Nath Ka Bagh was of Udainath Ji Maharaj, how and under what circumstances, applicants got right to have residence in that premises.
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants, the application so far as it relates to seeking quashing of the charge sheet and so far as it relates to seeking stay of the proceeding, stands dismissed.
However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed off.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
NS
