Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28507 of 2019 Applicant :- Ram Krishna Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Prabodh Dubey
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 611/2018, under Sections 420, 465 I.P.C., Police Station Chiluatal, District Gorakhpur pending before the concerned court below as well as summoning order dated 30.04.2019 passed in the aforesaid case.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Pointing out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions, it has been argued that the property in question bearing Araji no. 233 area 1.6070 hectare was recorded in the name of one Ram Bali, son of Mangal and after death of Ram Bali, it was recorded in the name of Smt. Champa Devi, daughter of Ram Bali. Smt. Champa Devi executed a registered sale deed in favour of the applicant on 03.11.2014 in respect of Araji No. 233 area 0.535 hectare and thereafter, the name of the applicant has been mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 03.01.2015 passed by Tehsildar Sadar, Gorakhpur. It was submitted that in respect of Araji no. 233 area 0.535 hectare, applicant executed a registered sale deed in favour of wife of opposite party no. 2 on 22.03.2016 in which name of the wife of opposite party no. 2 has also been mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 23.05.2016 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Pipraich, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur and since then, wife of opposite party no. 2 is in possession over the land in Araji No. 233 area 0.535. It was also submitted that total area of the property in question is 1.6070 hectare and thereafter, some dispute arose between Bechu, Triloki and Bhagirathi and they are claiming share in the property in question on the basis of the alleged sale deed executed by Ram Bali and the matter is still pending in the court of Tehsildar, Sadar, Gorakhpur. It was further argued that the sale deed dated 03.11.2014 executed by Smt. Champa Devi in favour of the applicant has not been challenged by anyone in any court of law and similarly, sale deed dated 22.03.2016 executed by the applicant in favour of the wife of opposite party no. 2 has also not been challenged by anyone in any court of law. It was pointed out that there was some dispute between opposite party no. 2 and co-sharers of the property in question with regard to demarcation of the said property and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was submitted that the impugned summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without examining the matter of the case and thus, the proceedings as well as summoning order is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and argued that prima facie a case is made out against the applicant.
There are allegations in the complaint that father of Champa Devi has already sold the disputed property and alleged Ram Krishan has purchased this property from Champa Devi in fraudulent manner and mutation was made with connivance of applicant and others. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of case at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no case is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr. P.C. It is well settled that at this stage only prime case is to be seen.
Considering the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, material on record and considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, no case for quashing of the proceeding is made out.
The prayer, as made above, is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that in case applicant appears and surrenders before the courts below and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously on its own merits.
With the aforesaid direction, the application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 Anand