Dismissed

Ramteras @ Teras and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2024A482/31207/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of criminal proceedings arising from a dispute over a boundary wall, the Allahabad High Court examined rival submissions arguing malicious prosecution versus genuine grievance. The Court found that while a civil suit is pending, the applicant's failure followed by forced demolition and beating of the victim established a prima facie cas

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramteras @ Teras and 5 Others vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:156017

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

(Sl.No. 17)

Court No. - 79

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31207 of 2024

¶7

Applicant :- Ramteras @ Teras And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶9

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 884 of 2024 (State vs. Ramteras @ Teras and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 11 of 2024, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. as well as charge sheet no. A21 of 2024 dated 25.01.2024, Police Station-Kheta Saray, District-Jaunpur and the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.07.2024.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and the opposite party no.2 are the neigbhours and there is a civil dispute pending between the parties with regard to boundary wall adjoining the house of both the parties. The civil suit was filed by the applicants in the year 2009. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that in the instant case there is no apparent injury to the daughter of the opposite party no.2 and the instant case has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 to create a pressure on the applicants to withdraw the civil suit. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant FIR is nothing but a concocted story made by the opposite party no.2 and is a malicious prosecution on the part of the opposite party no.2. Hence, he seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the civil suit was filed by the applicants against the opposite party no.2 in the year 2009 which is still pending and as stated by learned

¶13

counsel for the applicants, no interim order has been passed in favour of the applicants till date. Therefore, there was no occasion for the opposite party no.2 to falsely implicate the applicants. From the narration of the facts in the FIR, which are duly supported by the witnesses and the victim as well as by the opposite party no.2, a prima facie case has been made out against the applicants. Learned A.G.A. further submits that though there are no physical injury sustained by the victim, however during examination the victim complained of pain. Since a prima facie case is made out from the records available before learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter, therefore, no interference is called for in the instant case while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the records of the case.

¶15

From the records of the case, it is apparent that though a civil dispute is pending since 2009 and no interim order is passed in favour of the applicants, therefore there was no immediate cause on the part of the opposite party no.2 to initiate any false implications against the applicants. However, since the applicants have failed to succeed in the said civil suit, they have demolished the wall forcibly and when it was objected by the daughter of the opposite party no.2 they have beaten her, for which the instant FIR was lodged. The aforesaid incident is duly supported by the statements made by the opposite party no.2 as well as the victim. Therefore, from the facts of the case, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants and this Court does not find any good reason to entertain the instant application.

¶16

For reasons aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 23.9.2024 Kirti

¶18

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramteras @ Teras and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramteras @ Teras and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Singh Gusain and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Pinki Rani vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prince Chaprana and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhir Kumar Singh vs Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 4 Others

Rajpal Singh and Others vs Additional Commissioner, Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Mohd Tauqeer Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. and Another