Court No. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19495 of 2020 Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Case No. 212 of 2014 (Prashant Kumar Vs. Jagdish Prasad and others) under Section 379 I.P.C. Police Station Hathras Junction, District Hathras, whereby discharge application filed by the applicants has been rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no.2 has filed complaint of instant case making false and baseless allegations that the proceedings of complaint case WERE challenged by the applicants by way of filing Criminal Misc. (482) Application No. 49339 of 2014 (Jagdish Prasad and four others Vs. State of U.P. and another) which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2014 with liberty to the applicants to move an application for discharge, thereafter discharge application was filed by the applicants, which has been illegally rejected vide impugned order dated 02.03.2020. It was further submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants and that applicant no.1 is tenure holder and has been in possession of 1/2 share of disputed land of Gata no. 359 area 0.211. It was next argued that the complainant is neither the owner of the land nor he in possession over the same. It was also argued that earlier mutation was done in the name of mother of opposite party no.2 namely, Mamta Devi over the disputed land but by the order dated 16.08.2018, name of earlier owner Smt. Ramwati as well as wife of the applicant no.1 were recorded as co-tenure holder over the disputed land after expuging the name of mother of the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel has next submitted that all these facts have not been considered by the learned Court below and that the application seeking discharge by the applicants has been rejected in an arbitrary manner.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that at the time of incident, the disputed land was in the name of mother of the opposite party no.2 and she was in possession over the same and that there are allegations against the applicants that they have taken away the mustard crop standing over the said land. It was further submitted that the application of applicants seeking discharge was rightly rejected. It was further submitted that from the perusal of the material on record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.
It is well settled that while considering discharge application, the Court has to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. At this stage, a mini trial cannot be held and the Court can shift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. Where material placed on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in rejecting application for discharge. The Court is not to hold mini trial by marshalling the evidence. At this stage only it is to be seen that whether prima facie case is made out or not and evidence cannot be examined meticulously. Even the strong suspicion founded on material is sufficient to frame charges.
In the instant case, perusal of record shows that the impugned order has been passed by the Court below by making detailed discussion of the entire facts and found that at the time of alleged incident, the said land was recorded in the name of mother of the opposite party no.2 and that the allegation of applicants that at relevant time applicant no.1 was owner and in possession over the disputed land has no substance. The Court below has considered the entire facts in details and concluded that there is sufficient material against the applicants for making out of prima facie case.
It is well settled that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.c. have to be exercised to secure the ends of justice, to prevent abuse of process of any Court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. depending upon the facts of given case. In the instant case, no such eventuality could be shown and there is nothing to indicate that there has been any miscarriage of justice.
Considering entire facts and law, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any such illegality, perversity or abuse of process of law, so as to require any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus no case for quashing the impugned order is made out. Hence, prayer for quashing of impugned order is refused.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021 S.Ali