Dismissed

Bachcha Lal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Mar 2024/1763/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings and discharge. The Court upheld the trial court's rejection of the discharge application, noting a prima facie case existed and the applicant failed to disclose a pending civil suit regarding the disputed land.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing of proceedings and discharge dismissed; future bail application to be considered expeditiously.

Bachcha Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18828

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1763 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bachcha Lal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Lodhi,Ambrish Kumar Pandey

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Lodhi, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Gyandendra Singh, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶9

Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned charge sheet no.01/19, dated 16.02.2019, summoning/cognizance order dated 18.07.2019 along with entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2339 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.261 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Bhinga, District Shravasti pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shravasti. The applicants have also challenged the impugned order dated 11.01.2024, whereby the application for discharge of the applicants has been rejected.

¶10

The opposite party no.2 has lodged F.I.R. No.261 of 2018 on 23.06.2018 against six persons, including the applicants in furtherance of an application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. stating that the complainant had purchased a plot of land through a sale deed dated 12.10.1998 from Sarvar son of Zahoor. On 04.04.2015 the accused persons purchased the same land from one Kutub Ali wrongfully showing the same to be an

¶11

abadi land. On 27.03.2018 the accused persons came to take possession of the land and then the informant came to know that the accused persons had obtained a fake sale deed in respect of the land. When the informant resisted them the accused persons had badly beaten him up, abused him and threatened him.

¶12

Earlier, the applicants had filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.8102 of 2019 which was disposed of permitting the applicants to move application seeking their discharge.

¶13

The applicants had moved the application seeking discharge stating that the sale deed in favour of the applicants had been executed 17 years after the execution of the said deed in favour of the complainant. The sale deed in favour of the applicants has been executed in respect of an abadi land. It has been stated in the application that the allegations levelled against the applicants are false and they are being prosecuted merely to harass them.

¶14

However, the fact that the applicant no.2 has filed a Suit No.150 of 2015 against the complainant and his brother in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shravasti and that an injunction order was passed in the aforesaid suit on 17.04.2015 directing the parties to maintain status quo, was not mentioned in the application seeking discharge.

¶15

In these circumstances, the learned trial court decided the application for discharge by means of the impugned order dated 11.01.2024 stating that by the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the witnesses have supported the incident. The charges are yet to be framed and evidence is to be lead by the parties thereafter. From the material collected by the

¶16

Investigating Officer till this stage a prima facie case for trial of the accused persons for the alleged offences is made out. Relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mohd. Asif Vs. State of U.P.: 2004 (58) ACC 938 SC and State of Orissa Vs. Devendra Nath Panda: 2003 (46) ACC 471 SC the learned trial court has held that a mini trial cannot be held at this stage and accordingly rejected the application for discharge of the applicants.

¶17

When the applicants had filed an application for discharge merely on the ground that the complaint had been filed on the false allegations and they themselves did not plead that the F.I.R. lodged on 23.06.2018 mentioned that the sale deed in favour of the accused persons was executed on 04.04.2015 and that the informant was not aware of the sale deed dated 04.04.2015 till 27.03.2018, when the accused persons tried to take possession of the land in question forcibly, which allegations were supported by the persons examined by the Investigating Officer and the applicants themselves did not make any mention of filing of a Suit No.150 of 2015 and passing of the injunction order on 17.04.2015 in their application seeking discharge and copy of that order was not placed before the learned trial court, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in rejecting the application for discharge after considering the averments made in the application and considering the relevant law regarding scope of enquiry at the stage of deciding an application for discharge.

¶18

In view of the above discussion, there appears to be no illegality in the impugned order. The application lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is provided that in case the applicants appear and file an application for their

¶19

release on bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, including the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I., (2021) 10 SCC 773 .

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 1.3.2024 Ram.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bachcha Lal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachcha Lal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharath Lal Bajpai @ Bharat Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shanu @ Shan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lucknow and Others

Mohammad Ashraf Husain and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

M/S S.V. Eccentrics Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director Mr. Manish Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Nayum Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ram Mohan and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another