1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Shridhar Yadav vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 April, 2019


Court No. - 34
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2986 of 2004 Applicant :- Shridhar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- C.B. Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. None appeared on behalf of Respondent-3 though office report dated 17.07.2004 confirms that notice was served upon Respondent-3.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing of summoning orders dated 25.06.1997 and 25.03.2004 passed by IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in Criminal Case No. 214 of 1999, under Sections 147, 395, 504, 506, 427, 342 IPC as well as further proceedings of aforesaid criminal case.
3. Applicant was a Tax Inspector in Nagar Nigam Parishad Jaunpur and under the orders of Competent Authority proceeded to remove encroachment, whereupon complaint was lodged by Respondent-3 and entire complaint reads as under:
^^nQk&1 ;g fd ifjoknh lk0eks0 cxhpk mej[kkaW] Fkkuk dksrokyh ftyk tkSuiqj dk jgus okyk 'kkfUr fiz; ukxfjd gSA vkSj esgur etnwjh djds thou ;kiu djrk gSA nQk&2 ;g fd ifjoknh ds eksgYys ds eqfYteku mijksDr dkQh gkoh] ljd'k ,oa xkscUn fd'e ds O;fDr gSA vkSj ifjoknh ,oa mlds ifjokj okyks ls jaft'k j[krs gSa vkSj vk;s fnu ifjoknh dks ijs'kku djrs jgrs gSaA nQk&3 ;g fd ifjoknh eas vkjkth ua0 38 o 7 jdck feutqfeyk 21 ,;j dk jftLVjh }kjk cSukek ysdj Hkwfe/kj gS eqfYteku mijksDr eas nj[kkLr nkf[ky [kkfjt eas ,rjkt nkf[ky fd;k Fkk vkSj ekuuh; jktLo ifj"kn y[kuÅ rd tkdj eqdnek ygs] ekuuh; jktLo ifj"kn eas eqdnek fjek.M fd;k ckn fjek.M fnukad 3-5-97 dks ifjoknh ds i{k eas mi ftykf/kdkjh lnj us fu.k;Z fn;k rkjh[k QSlyk esa eqfYteku mijksDr ifjoknh ls ukjkt jgus yxs rFkk ,su dsu izdkjs.k ifjoknh dks tehu ls csn[ky djus dh /kedh nsrs jgsA nQk&4 ;g fd ?kVuk fnukad 14-5-97 dh le; djhc 12&30 cts fnu dh gS ifjoknh etnwjh djus pyk x;k Fkk gkth rkSfQy iq= eksgEen fuoklh eks0 mnwZ cktkj] lHkkjke ekS;Z iq= lhrkjke folfeYyk iq= cDdw] ul:n~nhu] le'kqnnhu iq= [kn:] eqUuw iq= fo;feYyk fu0 mej [kkaW cxh;k] rFkk Jh/kj ;kno dj fujh{kd uxj ikfydk tkSuiqj o vU; cgqr ls yksxkas dks lkFk ydjs ,d jk; gkdjs VS~DVj V~kyh rFkk cqYMkstj ysdj esjh tehu vkjkth ua0 38 ij tk;as rFkk ml vkjkth ij esjh jk[kh gq;h iRFkj dh ,d gtkj ifV;k fcdzh gsrq j[kh gq;h Fkh mBkdj Qsdus yxs bl ij esjs cPps us eq>s lwpuk fn;k tks eSa Hkkxk vk;k vkSj mijksDr yksxkas dks ,slk djus ls euk fd;k] rks mDr yksx ekus ugha cfYd ge izkFkhZ] dks gh Hkn~nh&2 ekaW cgu dh xkfy;ka nsus yxs vkSj VS~DV~j tks lkFk esa yk;s Fks ml ij ejhs djhc ikap lkS ifV;k ykn tcjnLrh ysdj pys x;s vkSj dqN ifV;k cxy ds xMMs eas Qasd dj pwj dj fn;k esjs jksdus ij mDr yksx esjs edku ds cxy okys folfeYyk vkfn ds cus gq, vkjk e'khu okys dkj[kkus eas mijkDrs ykxkss a us e>q s cUn dj fn;k eSa cgqr fpYyk;k ysfdu mDr yksxkas us eq>s ugha NkMs k vkSj /kedh nsrs jgs fd T;knk cksyksxsa rks tku ls ekj MkyasxsA mDr lkjh ?kVuk dks xokgku uohtku] edcwy] bejku] eRrw] ekBw rFkk lyeku o vU; cgqr ls yksxkas us ns[kk rFkk ge izkFkhZ dks dejs eas cna gvq k lqudj xokgku tkdj dkj[kkus esa NqMkdj yk;s ejss fjgk gksus ds ckn eqfYteku mijksDr us /kedh fn;k fd ;fn rqe ge yksxksa ds f[kykQ iqfyl eas ekj fn;k tk;sxkA fjiksVZ ds fy;s tkvkasxs rks rqedks rFkk rqEgkjs ifjokj dks tku ls nQk&5 ;g fd bl ?kVuk dh lwpuk nsus Fkkuk dksrokyh jiV fy[kkus x;k rks Fkkuk eaq'kh us ;g dgdj ifjoknh dks okil dj fn;k fd gkth rkSQhd usrk vkneh gS muds f[kykQ fjiksVZ ugha ntZ dh tk;sxhA nQk&6 ;g fd ifjoknh us bl lkjs okd;s dh lwpuk tfj;s jftLVMZ Mkd iqfyl v/kh{kd tkSuiqj dks fn;k ysfdu ml izkFkZuk i= ij Hkh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha gq;hA blfy;s ifjoknh etcwj gksdj Jheku~ th ds U;k;ky; eas jgk gSA ifjokn i= nkf[ky dj vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd eqfYteku mijksDr dks tqeZ nQkr - - - eas ryc Qjek dj nf.Mr djus dh d`ik djas] rkfd U;k; gksA** “Para 1: That the complainant is a peace-loving citizen residing at Mohalla Bagheecha Umarkhan, PS Kotwali, District Jaunpur, and has been earning his livelihood by doing labour work.
Para 2: That the aforesaid accused of the complainant's mohalla are very domineering, overbearing and wayward type of persons. They nurse enmity with the complainant and his family. They keep harassing the complainant almost daily.
Para 3: That the complainant is bhumidhar of plot nos. 38 and 7 measuring 21 acres by way of a registered sale-deed. The aforesaid accused had submitted objections against the mutation application and they contested the case up to the Board of Revenue, Lucknow. The Board of Revenue remanded the case. On 03.05.1997, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar passed an order in favour of the complainant. From the date of the order, the aforesaid accused got displeased with the complainant and kept threatening to dispossess him from the land somehow or the other.
Para 4: That the incident occurred on 14.05.1997 at around 12:30 pm. The complainant had gone for labour work. Haji Taufeeq s/o Mohammad r/o Mohalla Urdu Bazar, Sabha Ram Maurya s/o Sitaram, Bismillah s/o Bakku, Nasruddin, Samshuddin s/o Khadru, Munnu s/o Viyemilla r/o Umar Khan Bagheecha and Shreedhar Yadav, Tax Inspector from Nagar Palika, Jaunpur along with many others, with one volition, came to his plot no. 38 with tractor, trolley and bulldozer. At the said plot, one thousand stone slabs had been kept for selling. They started picking and throwing them. On this, his children informed him. He rushed there and forbade them from doing so. The said persons did not listen to him; rather, started using expletives to the complainant targeting his mother and sister. They forcefully loaded around 500 stone slabs on the tractor they had brought with them, and crumbled some stone slabs by throwing them in the sideward pit. On being stopped by him, the aforesaid persons locked him in Aara machine factory of Bismilla and others situated next to his house. He screamed a lot but they did not release him and kept saying that they would kill him if he utters anymore. The aforesaid entire incident has been witnessed by Navijaan, Maqbool, Imran, Mattu, Maathu, Salman and many others. On hearing that the complainant had been locked in the room, the witnesses got him released by going to the factory. On his release, the aforesaid accused threatened that if the complainant would go to the police to report the matter against them, he and his family would be killed.
Para 5: That the complainant went to PS Kotwali to report the incident. The Munshi present there returned him by saying that Haji Taufeeq is a political type man, no complaint would be registered against him.
Para-6: That the complainant sent information in connection with this occurrence to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur through post but no action was taken on that application. Hence, the complainant, being constrained, is filing this complaint before your goodself ’s court.
Hence, your goodself is requested to summon the aforesaid accused and punish them for offence u/s …… so as to deliver Justice.”
(English translation by Court)
4. Magistrate has issued summoning order after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. without noticing the fact that applicant was a public servant and exercised his statutory duties and, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken without seeking sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, from complaint no offence under Sections 147, 395, 504, 506, 427, 342 IPC is made out.
5. In view thereof, application is allowed. Impugned orders dated 25.06.1997 and 25.03.2004 passed by IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur as well as entire further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 214 of 1999, under Sections 147, 395, 504, 506, 427, 342 IPC are quashed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 AK
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Shridhar Yadav vs State Of U P And Others


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

29 April, 2019
  • Sudhir Agarwal
  • C B Yadav