Dismissed

Jhallar and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2021A482/2673/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for theft and related offenses. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that a prima facie case exists in the complaint and ownership disputes require trial court examination.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of criminal proceedings and summoning order dismissed; interim order vacated.

Jhallar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2673 of 2007

¶3

Applicant :- Jhallar And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- D.N. Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri D.N. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri M.P. Singh Gaud, learned AGA for the Staterespondent and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of complaint case No. 1177 of 2006, Panna Lal Vs. Jhallar and others, u/s 379, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Koirauna, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur Bhadohi as well as to quash the summoning order dated 20.6.2006.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the allegations made in the impugned complaint, are totally false and baseless. There was no occasion for the applicants to commit theft of the standing crop of the opposite party No. 2 as mentioned in the complaint, as the crop in dispute belonged to the applicants and they are the owner of the field where the crop was standing. Therefore, no offence under Section 379 IPC is made out against the applicants.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA contended that perusal of the complaint, prima facie, discloses the offence against the applicants and there is a specific allegation against the applicants that they committed theft of the standing crop of the opposite party No. 2 and after perusal of the complaint and statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., trial court rightly summoned the applicants in the instant matter. Learned AGA further contended that against the summoning order, applicants also preferred a revision before the court of Sessions which was also dismissed, therefore, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

Perusal of the complaint shows that in paragraph No. 5, there is a specific allegation against the applicants that

¶10

they committed theft of standing crop of the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 witnessed the same, therefore, there is no illegality in summoning order passed by the trial court and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants regarding the ownership of the field and standing crop, can only be examined by the trial court as at this stage, meticulous examination of the evidence is neither permissible nor possible.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present application is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶12

Interim order, if any, granted earlier stands vacated.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.12.2021 Ankita

Jhallar and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhallar and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Chand and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Lal Vs the State of U.P. and Others

Veerpal Vs State of U.P.and Another

Arjun Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mandeep and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another