Allahabad High Court
Balakram And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 May, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23198 of 2021
Applicant :- Balakram And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Rajnish Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case. petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
The present application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the judgment and order dated 16.9.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Bareilly (in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2020) (Balakram and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as summoning order dated 27.4.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bahedi, Bareilly arising out of Complaint Case No. 2670 of 2018 (Gulabi Vs. Balak Ram and others) under Sections 420, 468, 323 and 504 IPC pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bahedi, Bareilly.
Opposite party no.2 lodged a complaint against the applicants and one another with the allegation that they by way of forgery transferred his land to other and when he objected they abused him.
After registration of the complaint, the statement of complainant/opposite party no.2 and his witnesses were examined under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter the learned Magistrate issued summons against the applicants on 27.4.2019. The applicants challenged the summoning order dated 27.4.2019 before the Sessions Court, Bareilly which was also dismissed on 16.9.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the complaint case filed by opposite party no.2 is based on wrong and fabricated facts and he never transferred the land by way of any forged gift deed to anyone. He further submitted that the land which was transferred belonged to him and the learned trial court as well as the Sessions Court failed to apply its mind and they were wrongly summoned in the present case and the learned Sessions Court also dismissed their revision without properly appreciating the facts.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the complaint case as well as the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. prima facie discloses offence under Sections 420, 323 and 504 IPC and, therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.
A perusal of the FIR and the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.clearly discloses that there was an allegation against the applicants that they by way of forged gift deed transferred the land of opposite party no.2 to some other person and as the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that he did not transfer the land of opposite party no.2 (complainant) but he transferred his land in favour of his wife is concerned, that could only be appreciated by the trial court and not by this Court at this stage. Further, as also the revisional court dismissed their revision which was filed by them against the summoning order, therefore, in my considered view, it is not a fit case in which any indulgence is needed. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.5.2022
SKM
