Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32101 of 2019
Applicant :- Shiv Narayan @ Dheeraj Yadav And 9 Ors
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Surat Shukla,Shailendra Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of charge sheet dated 02.03.2019, cognizance dated 04.05.2019 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal Case No.13012 of 2019 (State vs. Shiv Narayan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0413 of 2018, u/s 147, 448, 504, 506 I.P.C., PS-Bidhanoo, District-Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Chief Metro Politan Magistrate-III, Kanpur Nagar.
Heard applicants' counsel and learned A.G.A. Entire record has been perused.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that earlier trustee of the temple had given the land Araji no.19 to the applicants for cultivation with the conditions that from the income of the agricultural works the expenses and maintenance of the temple and other ancillary expenses would be done. Further submission is that since 1980 the applicants are in possession of the said land and are doing agricultural work over the said land and are bearing the expenses and maintenance of the temple and other ancillary activities. Further submission is that the opposite party no.2 wants to sell the property but as she was not in possession over the said land, she is unable to execute any sale-deed regarding the aforesaid land. Submission is that only to dispossess the applicants from the land of the trust the present F.I.R. has been lodged. Certain other contentions have also been raised by the applicants' counsel but all of them relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.
Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430 , (2) Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker AIR 1960 SC 1113 and (3) Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case has recognized certain categories in which Section-482 of Cr.P.C. or Article-226 of the Constitution may be successfully invoked.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
A perusal of the F.I.R. of the present case shows that it has been lodged by the first informant against the applicants, who claims herself as main trustee of the temple, which is situated in Khata no.129, Aaraji no.19 having area 3.616 hectares. As per the F.I.R, the temple was established on the personal land of the family of the first informant and the land adjoining to the said temple also belongs to the trust of which the first informant was the main trustee. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the applicants had grabbed the land of opposite party no.2 which is in the name of the trust. Further allegation is that the first informant is an old aged lady and she found herself unable to get the possession back of the land. In her written statement the first informant had given details regarding the ownership of the temple and its adjoining land and had made allegations against the applicants that they had forcibly grabbed her land. Witnesses Ajay Sharma and Aditya Sharma had also substantiated the allegations made in the F.I.R. During the investigation the Investigating Officer found the name of the first informant in the revenue record as owner of the land in dispute. The Investigating Officer after thorough and fair investigation has submitted charge sheet against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 448, 504 and 506 IPC. The learned Magistrate after perusing the entire material on record has taken cognizance in the matter on 4.5.2019. It is evident from the record that the applicants are neither owners of the land nor they are having any lawful possession over the same. In the revenue records the name of the first informant is recorded and these facts have not been contradicted by the applicants.
The submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the court's process either.
The application lacks merit and therefore same stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019
M. Kumar/CPP