Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2620 of 2021
Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Yadav And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Vishwakarma,Ashwani Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Kant Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Rajesh Yadav and Suresh Yadav, seeking quashment of FIR dated 20.2.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 0027 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 448, 120B of I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Meerganj, District Jaunpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the real fact of the case is that the alleged Plot No. 174 and 175 are newly constituted plots which were previously identified as Plot No. 65/11 and 65/13 which is still recorded in the name of Lurkhua and others in the pre-consolidation period and as such the nature of Plot No. 65 was a 'Abadi' land during the consolidation period. The same is still recorded as 'Abadi' land which was never reserved as 'Harijan Abadi'. It is argued that the aforesaid land is an ancestral land of the petitioners having its pre-consolidation Plot No. 65 and the 'Abadi' as well as the trees existing in the pre-Zamindari Abolition period.
It is argued that the petitioners have filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge(J.D.), Jaunpur against Gaon Sabha as the Lekhpal of area was trying to disturb their possession in which written statement has been filed by Gaon Sabha wherein it has been admitted that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land prior to Zamindari Abolition. The said suit was rejected wrongly by the court concerned on 20.9.2006, against which an appeal has been preferred. Gaon Sabha has filed a written statement in the said appeal and the same has also been rejected by the court concerned vide order dated 7.11.2015, against which a Second Appeal has been filed before this Court in which notice has been issued on delay condonation application.
It is argued that the dispute is a civil dispute between Gaon Sabha and the petitioners and the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by a stranger who is in no capacity to lodge the same as even the encroachment is of Gaon Sabha land and not of a private land. It is argued that the respondent no. 4 has no locus to lodge the present F.I.R. and, as such, the same be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and argued that from perusal of the allegations levelled against the accused persons in the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed. It is argued that the writ petition be dismissed.
Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2006) 56 ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others : AIR 1992 SC 604 that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner (s) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 6.4.2021 Naresh