Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3959 of 2018 Appellant :- Munna Lal Bhargava And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Yadav,Mahendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against cognizance order dated 21.05.2018 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Munna Lal Bhargava and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 510 of 2017, under Sections 188, 504, 506 and 353 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Kotwali Gurusahaiganj, District-Kannauj.
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the impugned order of cognizance dated 21.05.2018 is wrong on the facts of law; that the respondent No.2 lodged a false F.I.R. against the appellants regarding the alleged incident dated 07.03.2017; that it is wrong to say that the appellants were raising constructions over the C.C. road, the public way and did not stop his constructions despite notice in writing; that it is also wrong to say that during removal of the encroachments, the appellants pointed rifle on the respondent No.2 and abused him with caste name; that the entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that the real fact is that the appellants were raising constructions on his own land under permission from the Municipal Board as per the inquiry report at Annexure 13; that apart from it vide inquiry report at Annexure-11 also it has been found that appellants had left 3 feet and 6 inches land before C.C. road over which he was raising constructions of drain; that the constructions of appellants were wrongly demolished by villagers on 07.03.2017 regarding which he lodged F.I.R. on 01.04.2017 under Sections 147, 149, 504, 506, 427 IPC against villagers and subsequently lodged F.I.R. against the respondent No.2 and other employees of Municipal Board and other persons at case Crime No. 1198 of 2017 on 26.11.2017 under Sections 395, 504, 506, 427 IPC; that the learned trial Court acted wrongly in not considering the correctness of the facts; that the Investigating Officer has not investigated the matter properly and submitted chargesheet without collecting any evidence against the appellants; that the trial Court without due application of mind has passed the impugned order of cognizance which is liable to be set aside.
Per contra learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order and contended that the appellants were encroaching over municipal land of Rasta and despite service of notice in writing they did not remove their unauthorized constructions and when the encroachment was being removed, the appellants committed the incident in question; that it is wrong to say that the appellants were not served notice in writing and they could not dare to make such demand in the memo of appeal or in the affidavit; that there is no sanction for the construction and photocopy of the alleged certified copy of mere inquiry report is not admissible; that moreover the defence version cannot be considered at the stage of cognizance; that the appellant No.1 is an advocate and if has managed to lodge FIR as stated by appellants, that does not make the impugned order wrong or illegal; that the appeal has been filed with false allegations just to delay the disposal of trial and is liable to be dismissed.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show any illegality or incorrectness in the impugned order of cognizance. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 S. Thakur