Allahabad High Court
J.P. Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 November, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7015 of 2019
Applicant :- J.P. Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Madhur Prakash,Syed Mohd. Fazal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pavan Kumar Mishra
and
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6917 of 2019
Applicant :- K.B. Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Madhur Prakash,Madhur Prakash,Syed Mohd. Fazal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pavan Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
These matters were mentioned on behalf of learned counsel for applicant and it is informed that information was sent to Sri Pavan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 by way of whatsapp, text message, even, he refused to accept information in writing and also refused to pick up telephone calls and endorsement in this regard is placed on record.
Therefore, both applications are heard simultaneously having similar facts even in absence of learned counsel for opposite party No.2.
Heard Sri S.G. Hasnain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Madhur Prakash and Sri Syed Mohd. Fazal for applicants in both applications.
The applicant J.P. Singh was posted at the relevant time as General Manager (Construction), GAIL India Limited, Ranchi, Jharkhand and applicant K.B. Singh was posted at the relevant time as Executive Director (Eastern Region), GAIL India Limited, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
For the purpose of laying gas pipelines for transportation of natural gas by GAIL India Limited, certain lands were acquired and as per the revenue records, the compensation was determined and was distributed by Competent Authority prescribed under Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short "Act of 1962").
The opposite party No.2 (complainant) had set up a case by way of filing of a complaint that the applicants before this Court in connivance with co-sharers executed a forged document whereby the shares of complainant was withheld and the compensation was distributed between co-sharers only.
In support of his averment, he himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as two witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar by way of impugned order dated 15.09.2014 summoned the applicants along with Competent Authority.
Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon the provisions of 'Act of 1962' as well as submits that applicants do not have any role to play with regard to disbursement, assessment and acquisition of land for laying down the gas pipelines as it was the duty of Competent Authority under the Act of 1962 as well as the complainant has never raised any objections in terms of Section 10 and 11 of the 'Act of 1962' which prescribed that in case of dispute with regard to payment of compensation, the matter can be referred to the competent District Judge. Therefore, criminal proceedings are nothing but malicious and were instituted only in order to harass the applicants.
Learned Senior Advocate also points out that the impugned order is bereft of requisite opinion as required under Section 204 Cr.P.C. and in this regard he placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Lalankumar Singh vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383.
Since none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2, therefore, on the request of this Court, Sri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State has assisted on legal issue and has placed reliance on the provisions of 'Act of 1962' that in case of any dispute in regard to payment of compensation, the aggrieved party can approach the Competent Authority and dispute could be referred to competent District Judge. However, complainant has never raised grievance before the Competent Authority.
Considering the above submissions as well as provisions of law, there is merit in the argument of Senior Advocate that instead of taking a correct remedy which was available with the complainant under the provisions of Act of 1962 to file an application under Section 11 to raise his dispute for compensation, if any, so that the dispute/matter could be referred to the District Judge, however, the complainant filed a criminal complaint before the Court concerned to place his grievance but the averment that there was a forgery committed by applicants was not based on any evidence or any document.
There is further merit in the argument of learned Senior Advocate that formation of opinion in the impugned order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is missing, therefore, on both the grounds, the proceedings initiated against applicants by way of filing a complaint as well as impugned summoning order dated 15.09.2014 suffers from illegality and therefore, both applications are allowed and the impugned order dated 15.09.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 5535/9 of 2016 (Dharampal vs. K.B.Singh and others), by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Thana Bhawan, District- Shamli is hereby set aside.
The application is allowed with a cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by opposite party No.2/complainant in High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks from today.
Order Date :- 24.11.2022
Nirmal Sinha
