Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38179 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt Sakeena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Saxena,Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 11.7.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar, in case no. 367 of 2016, under sections 452, 395, 354, 354-A, 354-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Phase-2, District Gautambudh Nagar.
Brief facts of the case is that the opposite party no.2 entered the house of the applicant in an intoxicated condition and started to misbehave with the daughter and daughter-in-law of the applicant and when she objected the opposite party no.2 left the house and again he came back with his colleagues and looted jewelry and cash to the tune of Rs.2,20,000/-. The statements under sections 200 and 202 have been recorded.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court below vide order dated 11.7.2018 rejected the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. without considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record. The court below has also not taken into consideration the statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. which supports the complaint allegations.
Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant and submitted that there is property dispute in between the parties. He further submits that on the complaint the court concerned has directed the police to maintain peace at the spot and on the direction of the court, the police went on the site and tried to stop the illegal construction on the disputed land. The applicant for creating pressure on the police falsely implicated the opposite party no.2. This malicious prosecution has been launched only with a view to put pressure on opposite party no.2.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record and the statements of the complainant and of witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. this Court finds that the applicant was trying to built a house on the disputed land and on the direction of district authorities the opposite party no.2 went on the dispute land where illegal construction was going on by the applicant. The opposite party no.2 tried to stop the illegal construction with a view to maintain law and order situation in the area and due to this the aforesaid malicious prosecution has been initiated against the applicant, therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned passed by the court below.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Prajapati [Chandra Dhari Singh, J]