Dismissed

Brij Lal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2022CRLP/4619/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging theft of crops and assault. The court held that despite disputes on possession and factual contradictions, the FIR alleged cognizable offences. Reference to a Supreme Court judgment regarding conviction was distinguished as inapplicable at the pre-trial stage. The petition was dismissed without prejudice to bail applications.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to apply for bail or anticipatory bail.

Brij Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Reserved

¶2

Court No. - 46

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4619 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Brij Lal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Javed Husain Khan,Imran Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 27.03.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No.0072 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 379, 354 (Kha), 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Banda.

¶8

The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the case pertains to theft of a crop. For such a first information report to constitute an offence, it must clearly be indicated in the F.I.R. itself as to who was in possession and as to who has planted the crop and only then the question of any theft will arise.

¶9

The second contention is that the allegation under Section 354 I.P.C. is not against the petitioner and is against the co-accused. The dispute regarding the land in question is pending before this High Court and an order of status quo is operating. The dispute is basically a civil dispute which has been given the colour of criminality.

¶10

It has been next contended that during consolidation proceedings, the land in question has been allotted to the petitioners and they are in possession. The possession memo is annexed thereto.

¶11

On a query being made by the Court, as to the date on which the Perwana was issued for delivery of possession, counsel for the petitioner only submits that he has filed all relevant documents, indicating thereby that the query of the Court is irrelevant.

¶12

Now at this stage, the contention of counsel for the petitioners is that if on the date, the F.I.R. is lodged, possession is disputed,

¶13

even then no offence is made out. On the date, the first information has been lodged, the same day, a dispute, took place on the spot and the parties were challaned.

¶14

Lastly it is submitted that there are reports of the revenue authorities as also consolidation authorities which will show that the factual situation is contrary and what has been stated in the F.I.R. and it is the first informant who has damaged the crop of the petitioners.

¶15

In support of his contention, reliance has been placed specifically in para-12 of decision of the Apex Court in Ram Ekbal Rai and others Vs. Jaldhari Pandey reported in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 949.

¶16

Insofar as the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is not mentioned in the FIR as to who was in possession and who had planted the crops alleged to have stolen, it would suffice to state that an FIR is not required to be an encyclopedia. The only requirement for consideration by the writ court is as to whether the allegations, therein, constitute an offence or not. In our consideration opinion, the allegations do constitute a cognizable offence.

¶17

The contention that in case it was the petitioners who are in possession and had planted the crops, no case of theft is made out, also does not improve the case of the petitioners.

¶18

In paragraph 31 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the FIR is a case of false implication and that no offence under Section 504 I.P.C. is made out as the petitioners have not indulged in any incident regarding breach of peace.

¶19

This assertion is belied by the fact and the submission made, that on the date of incident, both the parties were challaned as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶20

Also on the question of possession over the land in question on the date of alleged incident, it would be relevant to refer to paragraph 18 and 19 of the writ petition, which talk to a supurdginama executed on 20.03.2021, whereby the crops standing on the land in question were given in the supurdgi of the chowkidar of the villager. Regarding this document, the assertion in the writ petition is that the signature of the son of the petitioner was obtained on this supurdginama by coercion and that the petitioner has not signed this document. It, however, shows that the question of possession is a disputed question of fact and it is not possible for this Court to decide this issue on the basis of mere pleadings because a disputed

¶21

question of fact is, in any case, beyond the scope of a writ petition.

¶22

Moreover, as already noticed above, in the earlier part of this judgment, the petitioners' counsel has no answer to the query of the Court as to when the parwana was issued, for possession over the land in issue bring delivered to the petitioner.

¶23

The reliance of learned counsel for the petitioners upon the judgment in the case of Ram Iqlaq (supra) is in our considered opinion, misplaced. The said judgment has been rendered in a Special Leave Petition, which was directed against an order of conviction by the trial court, which was affirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal and consequential revision was dismissed by the High Court. The judgment relied upon, having been rendered after the trial of a case under Section 379 I.P.C. had concluded, therefore deals with the points for consideration while recording a conviction in a case of theft of crops. At this stage, in a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR, the judgment has no application as the trial in the case at hand is yet to commence. Moreover, the writ court at this stage is not required to consider as to whether the allegations in the FIR and the case set up therein, is going to result in conviction or not.

¶24

Under the circumstances, we find that the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner do not justify interference at this stage. Interference is not justified also because the allegations in the FIR, as already observed, hereinabove, contain the ingredients of a cognizable offence. The FIR therefore cannot be quashed.

¶25

In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed, however without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to apply for bail/anticipatory bail.

¶26

Order Date :- 12.07.2022 Mayank/Meenu

¶27

Digitally signed by MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.07.12 14:24:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brij Lal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Lal and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tirmal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Munnu Alias Rajesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Farha Faiz Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nihal Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shanu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others