Gurjeet Singh Chawla vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 16021 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gurjeet Singh Chawla vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 May, 2024

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:82268
 
Reserved on :06.05.2024
 
Delivered on :08.05.2024
 
Court No. - 65
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18241 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Gurjeet Singh Chawla
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Rahul Dubey, learned counsel for applicant and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for State.

2. This Court has passed following order on 23.08.2022 :-

"Sri Rahul Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the contents of the F.I.R. lodged on 04.05.2021, the allegation in regard to Section 448 Cr.P.C. (Punishment for House Trespass), Section 427 Cr.P.C. (Mischief, and thereby causing damage to the amount of 50 rupees or upwards) and Section 504 Cr.P.C. (Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace) are alleged to be occurred way back in the year 2011 and the F.I.R. is lodged after a period of 10 years and as such the cognizance is barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel further submits that allegations in regard to Section 420 Cr.P.C. cannot be applicable to the applicant as he is a bonafide purchaser who brought the plot in question in the year 2016 as well as cognizance of this offence is also barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C., even considering sub-section (3) of Section 468 for the purpose of determining the period of limitation.

Matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to opposite party No.2 returnable at an early date.

List on the date fixed.

There will be a stay of further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10960 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. CNR UPJS-040130-2022) (State Vs. Gurjeet Singh Chawla) arising out of Case Crime No. 0195 of 2021 under Sections 420, 448, 427, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jhansi, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi for a period of three month."

3. Notice has been served upon to opposite party No.2 through his wife, however, no one has entered appearance on his behalf.

4. In regard to cognizance being barred by Section 468 Cr.P.C. learned counsel for applicant has not much pressed his argument since it being a continuous offence. In this regard, the Court also takes note of a judgment placed on record by learned A.G.A. for State in case of Arun Vyas and Anr. Vs. Anita Vyas, 1999 (4) SCC 690.

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that he is bona fide purchaser and he was not involved in any crime. There is no allegation against him that he has committed any offence of forgery. The document was duly registered at Office of Registrar and he refers document annexed along with this application. Learned counsel also refers judgment passed by this Court in Akhilesh Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of U.P. and another (2022) 6 ALL LJ 321, judgment passed by Supreme Court in Md. Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751 and that a civil dispute has been given a colour of a criminal dispute.

6. Per Contra, learned A.G.A. for State submits that during investigation, report of Lekhpal was collected and he refers the same being part of case diary and being relevant is reproduced hereinafter:-

"अवलोकन लेखपाल रिपोर्ट...... लेखपाल मौजा झांसी खास श्री नरेन्द्र पाल सिंह तहसील व जिला झांसी की आख्या दि० 15.07.21 का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि विवादित भूमि मु०अ०सं० 195/21 धारा 420/448/427/504/120 बी भा.द.वि. से सम्बन्धित आख्या के पैरा दो नोन जेडए भूमि सं० 2315...2316 खाता खेवट नं० 11 मुहाल नदू के राजस्व अभिलेखों में विपक्षी गुरजीत सिंह चावला का नाम दर्ज कागजात नहीं है। विपक्षी गुरजीत सिंह चावला ने अपने प्रा० पत्र दि० 24.05.21 जो थाना प्रभारी कोतवाली झांसी को प्रेषित किया है, मै विवादित भूमि के सम्बन्ध में विक्रय पत्र प्रेषित किये गये है इन विक्रय पत्रों के अवलोकन के पश्चात पाया गया कि भूमि सं० 2315...2316 जो जेडए की जमीन है उसके सम्बन्ध में विक्रय पत्र दि० 17.06.2014 विलेख क्रमांक 4226 एवं विक्रय पत्र विलेख दि. 10.06.2014 विलेख क्रमांक 4048 जो पंजीकृत विलेख प्राप्त है किन्तु यह तीनों पंजीकृत विलेख प्रपत्रों की छायाप्रतियों के सम्बन्ध में लेखपाल नरेन्द्र पाल सिंह ने अपनी आख्या दि० 15.07.21 के क्रमांक नं० 1 में विपक्षी के इन विक्रय पत्रों का उल्लेख किया, किन्तु विपक्षी ने अब तक कोई विक्रय पत्र विलेख विवादित भूमि मुकदमा के सम्बन्ध में प्रस्तुत नहीं किया इस प्रकार विवेचना के दौरान यह तथ्य पाया गया कि गुरजीत सिंह चावला के पास विवादित भूमि से सम्बन्धित कोई मालिकान अधिकार नहीं पाया गया तथा राजस्व अभिलेखों में भी विवादित भूमि 2315.....2316 खाता खेवट नं० 11 मुहाल नदू के 0.31 डिसमिल भूमि के दर्ज अभिलेखों में विपक्षी का नाम अंकित नहीं है।"

7. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.

8. In recent judgments Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 484 and Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 936 held that, criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. Court further held that, ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of Court would spent on hearing appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at an interlocutory stage which might ultimately result in miscarriage of of justice as held in Hamida vs. Rashid alias Rasheed, (2008) 8 SCC 781.

9. The crux of argument of counsel for applicant is mainly that he is bona fide purchaser and, therefore, he was not involved in crime, however, considering the report of lekhpal which is referred above, at this stage, this Court cannot opine that applicant was not involved in crime in any manner.

10. As referred above, at this stage, the Court cannot conduct a mini trial as it will be subject matter of Trial Court on basis of evidence laid including evidence for defence, if any.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find it is fit case to exercise inherent power of this Court, accordingly this application is rejected.

12. Applicant has an interim order since 23.08.2022 i.e. about. for last one year and 8 months, therefore, no coercive measure will be taken against him for a period of three week from today. The applicant is directed to appear before learned Trial Court within aforesaid period and file bail application, if so advised which will be decided within a short period according to law on bail.

13. A copy of this order be sent to Trial Court.

14. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.

Order Date :- 08.05.2024

P. Pandey