This judgment considered an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted in a dispute over ancestral property. The Court found no sufficient ground to quash the charge-sheet or proceedings.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected; prayer to quash proceedings dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41942 of 2022
Applicant :- Betul @ Diwakar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav,Virendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
By moving this application, the prayer is made to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No.3632 of 2021, State Versus Betul, under Sections 353, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi and the charge-sheet dated 17.09.2018 in Case Crime No.460 of 2018 under aforesaid sections.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that previously the same person had lodged an FIR against the father of the applicant. Later on, Gaon Pradhan had also lodged an FIR against the father of the applicant and the present FIR has been lodged against the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated due to village party bandi. There is dispute of property. The disputed property is the ancestral property of the applicant. The name of the father of the applicant was expunged from the disputed property. The case regarding the same is pending before the revenue authorities. The three FIRs, two against the father of the applicant and one against the applicant have been lodged by the same Lekhpal and Gaon Pradhan, wherein both these persons are the only witnesses. After recording the statement of the first informant on 17.09.2018 on the same day charge-sheet was filed in the case, which shows that there was no transparency in the investigation. Hence, the prayer is made accordingly.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposed the prayer and submitted that on the basis of the statements of the revenue officials the chargesheet has been filed against the applicant. The father of the applicant had encroached upon the property of Rampal, hence, as per the instructions of Additional District Magistrate concerned an FIR was lodged against the father of the applicant and when FIR against the father of the applicant was lodged, the applicant is said
to have committed the offence mentioned in the present FIR, wherein charge-sheet under Sections 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. has been filed.
From the perusal of the record, it is found that opposite party no.2 is the Halka Lekhpal. As per instructions of the Additional District Magistrate concerned, he is said to have lodged an FIR against the father of the applicant on 18.09.2017. It is also said that regarding same cause of action that father of the applicant is in illegal possession of the land in dispute. The Gaon pradhan is also said to have lodged an FIR against the father of the applicant. As per the version of the present FIR, when after lodging an FIR against the father of the applicant on 18.09.2017 in compliance of oral instructions of the Additional District Magistrate concerned, the first informant on 01.08.2018 at 4:00 p.m. reached at the village and tried to collect information, the applicant is said to have come and after that he is said to have started abusing, giving threat of thrashing and threat of life, if the land of the father of the applicant is taken back.
Thus, a cognizable offence can be said to be made out as per FIR itself. Regarding the facts of the FIR, this Court is not inclined to enter into an enquiry at this stage.
No sufficient ground is found to quash the charge-sheet as well as entire proceedings.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected , accordingly.
Order Date :- 7.4.2023 Radhika
Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to quash the FIR and proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on allegations of vendetta and false implication.
Whether the investigation suffered lack of transparency warranting quashing of the charge-sheet.
Whether to enter into an enquiry regarding the facts of the FIR at this stage.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Betul @ Diwakar Singh
Sadhna Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
