Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15096 of 2021 Applicant :- Balvinder Kaur And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 1 of 2018 dated 27.06.2018, cognizance order dated 11.10.2018 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 6982 of 2018 (State vs. Subhash Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0113 of 2018, under Section 447 IPC and Section 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Amariya, District Pilibhit. so Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have not encroached the public utility land of Gaonsabha, hence no case is made out against the applicants.
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the aforesaid submission.
Perusal of record reveals that FIR was lodged by Lekhpal against the applicants and charge-sheet has been submitted. Whether the applicants have encroached upon public utility land of Gaonsabha or not, is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be determined in present proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2020 SCC Online SC 85, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/ complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
Following other authorities can be cited on the aforesaid point:
R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604.
All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, the prayer for quashing the proceedings is refused.
Learned counsel for the applicant requested that order may be passed for expeditious disposal of bail application in view of Brahm Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others 2016
(95) ACC950.
In view of the above, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail be considered and decided in view of the law laid down in Brahm Singh and others (Supra).
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.9.2021 v.k.updh.