Dismissed

Kripa Shankar and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2023A482/1114/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal reference application, the High Court declined to quash a charge sheet arising from a land dispute. The bench held that facts requiring adjudication belonged to the trial court and the recording of a prima facie case justified continuing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking quashing of the charge sheet and proceedings is rejected; interim order stands discharged.

Kripa Shankar and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1114 of 2019

¶2

Applicant :- Kripa Shankar And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Shankar Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Rai,Pradeepta Kumar Shahi,Sarvesh Kumar

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶4

Heard Mr. Udai Shankar Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Pradeepta Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶5

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.1/18 dated 20.08.2018 as well as further proceedings of criminal Case No.4783 of 2018 (State vs. Kripa Shankar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0196 of 2018, under Sections 489, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Doharighat, District-Mau, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

¶6

Brief facts of the case are that the applicants and opposite party no.2 are the co-sharer of Plot No.499 ad measuring area 0.641 hectares located in Village- Bahadurpur, Pargana- Ghosi, District Mau. It appears that some mutual partition between the parties was there, on the basis of same, the parties were in possession upon their respective shares. To establish the said fact, a copy of extract of Khatauni has been brought on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a suit of mutation for mutual partition was filed by opposite party no.2 arraying some dead persons namely Jai Prakash and others. The opposite party no.2 filed a case for division of the aforesaid Plot no.499 concealing the mutual partition between the parties. The aforesaid suit was decreed ex-parte by order dated 27.10.2017 against dead persons. In the order dated 27.10.2017, it was

¶8

mentioned that the final decree was to be prepared. After coming to know about the aforesaid ex-parte order dated 27.10.2017 filed by opposite party no.2 on behalf of dead persons also the recall/restoration application was moved on 11.06.2018 before the Sub District Magistrate, Ghosi and the Court concerned vide order dated 18.06.2018 directed the parties to maintain status quo. He further submits that a civil suit for permanent injunction against the applicants and others was filed by opposite party no.2 being Original Suit No.1418 of 2018. From the date of earlier order wherein exparte decree was issued, subsequently on the application moved by the applicants, the aforesaid order was modified to the extent, directing the parties to maintain status quo as on date. Subsequently, in the suit also by the order dated 29.08.2018, the parties were directed to maintain status quo as on date. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the Court at page 28 ‘Naksa Najri’ possession of the applicants is shown on (as portion mark-1) where as that of opposite party no.2 is A,B,S,D, (as portion mark-4). He further submits that the informant in order to harass the applicants have lodged the FIR with the allegations that pursuant to the order dated 27.10.2017 vide which ex-parte decree was granted to the applicants, nothing is done by the revenue authorities, however, alleging that Medi Bandhi was done pursuant to the aforesaid order. The accused who were five in number, including the four applicants, have taken out the stone on 01.06.2018 at about 6 AM demarcation portion of the co-sharers and have misbehaved with the opposite party no.2 and his family members using abusive language and tried to threaten them. The opposite party no.2 managed to save himself and gave an application to the police authorities regarding the incident dated 01.06.2018. It has further been alleged that on 21.06.2018 the concerned S.H.O. along with revenue officials and others police personnel reached the spot to look into the matter, however, one of

¶9

¶10

the accused namely, Kripa Shanker applicant no.1, who sat on the spot, in presence of all the persons started abusing the female members of opposite party no.2. He also did not permit the revenue officers to place the stone markers on the spot for demarcating the share of the co-sharers and, thereafter, all the officers seeing the serious situation there came back. It has also been alleged that applicant no.1 is an influential person of criminal nature. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted on 20.08.2018 and the applicants have been summoned by order dated 17.09.2018.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it has been wrongly stated by the opposite party no.2 that any such demarcation was done pursuant to the ex-parte decree dated 27.10.2017 as subsequently on the application moved by the applicants, order directing the parties to maintain status quo was passed, therefore, there was no question of any such demarcation being done by the revenue authorities. He further submits that the order directing the parties to maintain status quo was passed in the suit filed by the opposite party no.2, which was also marked on page no. 28 in the Naksa Najri in the application, therefore it cannot be believed that any such incident could take place for a thing which has not happened. He also submits that several litigations are pending between the parties and the FIR is nothing but bundle of lies to give a criminal color to the civil dispute pending between the parties.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 however submit that all the orders are passed in favour of opposite party no.2, therefore, there is no question of unnecessarily lodging an FIR without there being any such incident. The witnesses have given statements supporting the prosecution story. The other submission made by counsel for the applicants is related to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be seen here.

¶13

¶14

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.

¶15

This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:

¶16

(I) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866,

¶17

(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335,

¶18

(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222,

¶19

(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122,

¶20

(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682,

¶21

(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454,

¶22

(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and laslty

¶23

(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.

¶24

(ix) M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra; (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial

¶26

¶27

begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

¶28

The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.

¶29

In view of the above, the application being misconceived, is rejected. Interim order, granted earlier, stands discharged .

¶30

Order Date :- 22.2.2023 Rahul.

¶31

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kripa Shankar and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kripa Shankar and 3 Ors. 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

Vinod Kumar Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shamsuddin Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Bahadur Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulafsha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanni and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others