Allahabad High Court
Smt. Madhu Baranwal And 4 Others vs State Of U.P And Another on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 25.11.2022
Delivered on 16.12.2022
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17390 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Madhu Baranwal And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal,Arun Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Madhava Nand Shukla
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was directed to be considered as a complaint case. Statement of complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as statements of witnesses were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and by means of impugned order dated 11.01.2022 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. in Complaint Case No. 9040 of 2020 (Mukesh vs. Pravarsheel Baranwal and others) applicants were summoned for offences under Sections 452, 379, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
2. Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for applicants, submitted that after death of father of Applicant-1 and Opposite Party No. 2, both inherited 1/3 share of property. A Civil Suit No. 139 of 1996 (Jokhu vs. Raja Ram) is pending before concerned Court and after death of Jokhu, name of Applicant-1 was substituted as legal heir and that on 04.08.2020 Applicant-5 lodged a FIR against Opposite Party No. 2 and others for offence under Sections 417, 420 IPC alleging that accused persons prepared false and fabricated documents. Learned counsel further submitted that present proceedings by way of filing application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by complainant was a counter blast to above referred FIR lodged by Applicant-5. Opposite Party No. 2 also filed civil suit being Civil Suit No. 284 of 2021 seeking relief of injunction restraining defendants therein, i.e., applicants, from interfering in his peaceful possession over property in question. Aforesaid suit was filed on the basis of a Will dated 20.10.2008 and further that on the basis of complaint and statements recorded before Magistrate, no case is made out under Sections 452, 379, 323, 504, 506 IPC.
3. Sri Madhava Nand Shukla, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions. He submitted that applicants wants to disposses complainant and his family members forcefully from property and on 18.09.2020 they forcefully entered in the house and despite police was called, they still broke the lock and entered inside the house and assaulted wife of complainant. There is an injury report of injured, therefore, offences are prima facie made out.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
5. It is not in dispute that parties are closely related and a dispute with regard to possession of house is before Civil Court and criminal cases are also pending between parties.
6. In the above background I have carefully perused the complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The entire allegations are based on medical examination report of injured (wife of Opposite Party No. 2) and the report indicates minor crack fracture on her left clavicle lateral end. This report is dated 22.09.2020, i.e., after four days of alleged incident. There are specific allegations against applicants that they forcefully entered in the house of complainant, i.e., they have committed an offence under Section 452 IPC of house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. So far as offence under Section 379 IPC is concerned, the statements are also consistent that applicants have stolen a gold chain, therefore, prima facie case is also made for aforesaid offence.
7. On the basis of injury report and other evidence on record, the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC are also prima facie made out. Only on the ground that there are civil proceedings pending before Civil Court and that a FIR was lodged by applicants prior against complainant, however, ignoring the statements of injured witness as well as other witnesses including injury report, this Court cannot set aside impugned order by exercising inherent power. There is specific formation of opinion as required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against applicants. (See, Lalankumar Singh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383)
8. The application is accordingly dismissed. Applicants are directed to appear before Court concerned, if not already appeared, within a period of 15 days from today and if any bail application is filed the same shall be considered in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 and thereafter Trial Court is directed to conclude trial expeditiously.
Order Date :- 16.12.2022
AK
