Disposed

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022A482/24996/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings for illegal possession of land. The court held a prima facie case exists but ordered pending bail application consideration if the applicant surrenders.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash cognizance order refused. Bail to be considered if applicant surrenders and applies within three weeks.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24996 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Om Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 05.03.2020, cognizance order dated 07.06.2021 and entire proceedings of Case No. 3321 of 2021 (State Vs. Om Prakash), arising out of Case Crime No. 239 of 2019, under Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Nidhauli Kalan, District Etah, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is alleged that the applicant has illegally taken possession of plot no. 696, area 0.425 hectare, which is recorded as a 'Pond' and is illegally cultivating the same. A specific inspection report was filed by the Lekhpal stating therein that despite giving an opportunity to the applicant to vacate the said land, the applicant has not vacated the same and is in its illegal possession. Said statement has also been reiterated by the Revenue Inspector.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that allegations made in the FIR are false, cooked up and concocted made just with an intention to drag him in criminal court and as such, impugned cognizance order be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer and has submitted that from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and material collected

¶11

during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant and as such, impugned cognizance order cannot be quashed.

¶12

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the allegations made in the FIR as well as statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicant.

¶13

At this stage, disputed question of fact cannot be considered, therefore, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283, prayer for quashing the impugned cognizance order is refused.

¶14

However in case, the applicant appears/ surrenders before the court below and applies for bail within three weeks from today, his bail application be considered and decided in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, after hearing both the parties.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed off.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.12.2022 Nadim

¶17

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.12.20 10:05:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanuman Sewak Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Rajkumar Vs State of U.P.

M/S Maa Shakti Ceramics Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Irshad and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kedar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another