This court refused to quash criminal proceedings in a case involving alleged land dispute and potential SC/ST atrocity. It allowed surrender and conditional bail within thirty days pending trial.
Prayer for quashing refused; applicant allowed to surrender for bail within thirty days without coercive action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40200 of 2019
Applicant :- Rajeshwar Tyagi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Complainat Case no. 57 of 2018 (Anil Vs. Rajeshwar Tyagi) under sections 323 and 506 IPC and section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur which in pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.2/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharanpur as well as summoning order dated 27.3.2019 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court no. 2/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharanpur.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party no. 2 has lodged this false and fabricated complaint against the applicant only for grabbing the land of the applicant i.e. khasra no. 429 area about 0.448 which is recorded in the name of the applicant. At the time of the alleged incident the crop of the Jwar was also standing in the land. The wife of opposite party no. 2 tried to cut the crop of the applicant, then the applicant stopped her due to which she has lodged this false and fabricated complaint against the applicant. There is civil dispute between the parties. There is no injury report on record to support the complaint version. No offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is an old person aged about 70 years. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.
On the other hand learned A.G.A argued that the applicant has been summoned to face the trial on the basis of statement of the complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The opposite party no. 2 in his complaint has disclosed the entire facts of the incident and in support of his complaint he has examined himself under section 200 Cr.P.C and he has also produced his wife Smt Omi and Shivendra Kumar under section 202 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
A perusal of the record shows that the applicant has been
summoned to face the trial under sections 323, 506 IPC and section 3 (1) 10 SC/ST Act, on the basis of statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Learned court below has passed the impugned summoning order after considering the entire evidence available on record. Learned court below dealing with the complaint at this state has to see only prima facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicant. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the entire proceeding as well as summoning order of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP. For a period of 30 days from today or till the applicant surrenders and applies for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.11.2019/A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any ground to quash criminal proceedings and summoning order in a dispute involving alleged land grabbing and anti-social elements.
What relief Should be accorded to the applicant if he surrenders before the trial court within thirty days for application of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶12
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UPExplained¶12
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rajeshwar Tyagi
State Of U.P.
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
