Allahabad High Court
Gulfan Ahemad Said Ahemad Khan @ Gufran ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 7 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
??Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14169
Court No. - 12
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1930 of 2025
Applicant :- Gulfan Ahemad Said Ahemad Khan @ Gufran And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Instant application has been preferred by the applicants namely Gulfan Ahemad Said Ahemad Khan @ Gurfan, Saeed Ahmad Khan @ Saeed, Jahid Khan @ Zahid and Mohammad Kamran @ Kamran for the following main relief:-
"Prayer wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the proceeding of criminal case no 1004 of 2024 and Charge sheet dated 5.08.2023 as well as summon order dated 25.10.2023 arising 5-08-2023 out of case crime no 207 of 2023, under section 379-I.P.C and 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 ,Police station Kudwar District Sultanpur pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court 21 Sultanpur only for relates to the petitioners further, be pleased to stay the criminal proceeding of criminal case no 1004 of 2024, arising out of case crime no 207 of 2023, under section 379-I.P.C and 2 / 3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 Police station Kudwar District Sultanpur pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court 21 Sultanpur till final disposal of the present case only so for relates to petitioners."
3. It is stated that the FIR No.0207 dated 24.06.2023 lodged at P.S. Kudwar, District Sultanpur, under Section 379 I.P.C. & Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (in short 'Act, 1984'), which is the basis of the pending criminal proceedings, is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
4. According to FIR, the interlocking over kharanja road situated at Village Ajhuje, P.S.-Kudwar, District- Sultanpur was uprooted and thereafter entire material including bricks were taken away by the applicants no.1, 2 and 4 and some unknown persons.
5. In continuation it is stated that on account of the fact that on some part of land i.e. Gata No.341 situated at Village Ajhuie, Pargana - Meeranpur, Tehsil- Sadar, District - Sultanpur of which recorded tenure holder is Lailatul Nisha (mother of the applicant nos.1 and 4 and wife of applicant no.2), the interlocking road (kharanja) was constructed with collusion of Gram Pradhan and in relation to this land, the case under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short 'Code 2006') was instituted, registered as Case No.2828 of 2022 (Mohd. Saeed and others Vs. State and others) and this case was decided vide order dated 21.10.2024 and according to this order the road was constructed over the part of Gata No.341.
6. It is also stated that after the order dated 21.10.2024 the mother of the applicant filed Writ-C No.8707 of 2024 (Lailatul Nisha Vs. State of U.P. & others) and after taking note of the facts of the case including that over the land belonging to the petitioner -Lailatul Nisha the interlocking road was constructed, this Court directed the District Magistrate to ensure removal of interlocking tiles from the said bhumidhari land of Lailatul Nisha (mother of the applicant nos.1 and 4 and wife of applicant no.2) vide order dated 18.12.2024.
7. It is further stated that after the order dated 18.10.2024 the interlocking tiles (kharanja) were removed as would appear from the report signed by S.D.M. Sadar, District Sultanpur and District Magistrate, Sultanpur annexed at page no.136. The relevant portion of the same reads as under.
"???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? 18.12.2024 ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ????? ???? ????
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. Ms. Kritika Jyotsna, District Magistrate, Sultanpur has joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing in response to our dated 06.12.2024. After passing of the said order, she has clarified that based on the demarcation exercise undertaken earlier, it was found that land measuring 143 Sq.Mtrs. which is part of the bhumihdari land of the petitioner, has been encroached upon by one Ansar, a private person, who has constructed a house thereon. Likewise, 7 Sq. Mtrs. bhumidhari land of the petitioner has been encroached upon by one Deen Mohammad, Shamsher and Jamshed by constructing boundary wall etc. Apart from it, 90 Sq. Mtrs. of bhumidhari land of the petitioner has been utilised by the Gram Pradhan for construction of pakka road by putting interlocking tiles that too during the pendency of the demarcation proceedings initiated by the petitioner, for this the District Magistrate has issued a notice to the Gram Pradhan under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1947 and the proceedings are pending. The District Magistrate undertakes to ensure removal of the interlocking tiles from the bhumidhari land of the petitioner, for which she requires some time. As regards the encroachment by the private persons, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate separate proceedings as per law.
3. We grant six weeks' time to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur for the aforesaid purpose.
4. Let an affidavit be filed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur by the next date. It is open for the other opposite parties to file their affidavit in response to the writ petition.
5. List in the fourth week of January, 2025, as fresh.
6. The officer who has joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing, need not appear again."
??? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???????????? ??? ????????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ??? 341 ???? 0.1490??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? 14.12.2024 ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ??0 341 ?? ???????? ????? ??? ???? 90 ???????? ?? ?? ??? ??????, ??? ?? ??????????? ? ????? ??? ??? ??, ?? ?????? 13.01.2025 ?? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ???? 341 ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ? ??????????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???????????? ???? ?? ?????? 22.01.2025 ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???????-???????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ???
????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????
???????????? ??????????
???- ?????????? ??????????
8. It is also stated that the report of the District Magistrate is based upon the report dated 22.01.2025 signed by Tehsildar Sadar, Sultanpur and S.D.M.-Sadar, Sultanpur dated 22.01.2025, which is annexed at Page nos.137 and 138 of the instant application.
9. It is further submitted that the report indicates that interlocking tiles (kharanja) were removed by the officials of the government and from this it is apparent that the allegations levelled in the FIR to attract offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and Section 2/3 of the Act, 1984 are completely false and for this heavy cost should be imposed upon the person who lodged the FIR, i.e. Village Pradhan who constructed the road illegally.
10. Learned counsel for the applicants also stated that Writ-C No.8707 of 2024, indicated above, was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.01.2025. The order referred is extracted hereinunder.
"1. Heard.
2. In response to order dated 18.12.2024, Ms. Aakansha Dubey, learned standing counsel has written instructions to the effect that 90 meters of interlocking tiles which had been placed on the land of the petitioner have been removed, if there is any other dispute between the petitioner and the private parties, then, the official opposite parties cannot intervene and the petitioner may avail other remedies.
3. We cannot go into the factual issues as to how far interlocking tiles have been removed or not, but, there is an affidavit on record stating that the interlocking tiles have been removed annexing therewith the spot memo. Fresh instruction dated 22.01.2025 to the effect that 90 meters of interlocking tiles from the land of the petitioner have been removed, has been placed before the Court, which is taken on record.
4. An application for implementing the order passed under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in favour of the petitioner, as claimed, is pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned. Counsel for the petitioner says that no appeal has been filed against the said order. If it is so, let the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned consider and decide the said application as per law, but, with expedition, say, within one month of receipt of certified copy of this order.
5. The petition is disposed of. "
11. It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid no offence, in fact, is made out against the applicants as indicated under Section 379 I.P.C. and Sections 2/3 of Act, 1984.
12. Further submission is that to support the case of the prosecution the Investigating Officer neither recovered any brick from the possession of the applicants or on pointing of applicants.
13. Learned A.G.A. opposed the present application, but he could not dispute the aforesaid.
14. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.
15. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid particularly the report of the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, quoted in para 6 of this judgment, this Court is of the view that the entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.207 of 2023, indicated in the prayer quoted above, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly are hereby quashed
16. Present application is allowed.
17. Office/Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the court concerned through email/fax for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 7.3.2025
Anand/-
