Disposed

Munneelal and 34 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2022A482/35888/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings related to disobeying Section 144 orders and installing a statue. The court observed no case for interference at the present stage and directed that the application be re-filed after the framing of charges in a subsequent reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was disposed of without relaxing the proceedings, with a direction to move a fresh application after the framing of charge.

Munneelal and 34 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35888 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Munneelal And 34 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Johri,Ram Krishna Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kuldeep Johri, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant nos. 1 to 35 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 320 of 2020 under Sections 147, 353, 186, 188 IPC, Section 3/5 Public Property Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.

¶7

In this case, a FIR Case Crime No. 320 of 2020 under Sections 147, 353, 186, 188 IPC, Section 3/5 Public Property Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, naming certain persons and 20-25 unknown persons, was lodged with the allegations that they, flouting the prohibitory orders passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the wake of Covid-19 installed a statue of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, without requisite permission of the administration, on a Plot No. 529 belonging to Gram Sabha, which was earmarked for afforestation, with the aim and object to illegally grab the land and to possess it. On receiving this information from certain sources, the police team reached the spot and tried to prevent them from illegally occupying the land; they refused to budge and kept obstructing the public servants from discharging their duties and became adamant; after much ado, efforts and intervention by police, the police team managed to de-install the statue bringing it to the police station; the incident occurred at 0.45 hours in the night of 12.12.2020.

¶8

This fact is not disputed that the matter was investigated upon and a chargesheet was submitted against all the applicants under Sections 147, 353, 186, 188 IPC, Section 3/5 Public Property Act and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. This is also not disputed that on the basis of police papers, cognizance was taken by the learned A.C.J.M., Azamgarh on 16.03.2022 and the case is pending.

¶9

It is submitted on behalf of the learned AGA that as per papers on record i.e., copy of the chargesheet, notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. was served on accused persons, however, they failed to appear before the court concerned till now.

¶10

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that even if the statement of all the witnesses and the FIR is taken as true, the requisite ingredients of the offences, for which, cognizance has been taken are not made out.

¶11

I perused the statements of all the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The investigating officer has recorded the statement of the witnesses which include evidence of certain independent witness, in which, it has come that a number of persons including the applicants, who have been named, flouted the prohibitory orders promulgated under Section 144 Cr.P.C. The evidence has been collected to show that at the place of incident, they collected as a crowd forming an unlawful assembly for obtaining an illegal possession of land of Gram Sabha. The crowd could only be disbursed and the statue of Dr. Baba Sahab could be removed only after intervention of police force and several persons of the locality.

¶12

In my view, no case is made out for interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however, in case a suitable application is moved before framing of charge by the petitioners, the same shall be decided by the court concerned by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶13

Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.11.2022 Vik/-

¶15

Digitally signed by VIKRAM GUPTA Date: 2022.11.18 16:13:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munneelal and 34 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munneelal and 34 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

Juvenile (X) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramanand Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr. X Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra @ Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Minor X Vs State of U.P. and Another