Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summoning order and criminal proceedings initiated in a land dispute. Court issued notice and stayed further proceedings pending counter affidavits.
Stay granted on further proceedings in pursuance of the summoning order dated 18.08.2022.
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. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3822 of 2024
Applicant :- Saket Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manisha Trivedi,Vanshraj Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Ms. Manisha Trivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Veer Bhan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No.1 and perused the material placed on record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant, namely-Saket Gupta, seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 18.08.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao in Compliant Case No.4886/2021 (New No.214/2023) (Shyamkali vs. Saket Gupta) by means of which the applicant has been summoned to face the trial under Section 323, 452, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C., Police Station-Safipur, District-Unnao on the basis of false and fictitious allegation leveled by the complainant with malice intention as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.4886/2021 (New No.214/2023) (Shyamkali vs. Saket Gupta) pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (CAW), Unnao.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. She further submits that the present case is nothing but a ploy adopted by the opposite party No.2 and her husband, Naresh only with the intention to create pressure on the applicant so that the land, which was purchased by the applicant adjacent to the land of opposite party No.2 can be encroached by the opposite party No.2 and her husband. She further submits that the facts of the case in short are that in the village of the opposite party No.2, the applicant purchased land of Gata No.563 and 564 through registered sale deed dated 11.05.2016 and adjacent to the land of the applicant, the Gata No.574 belongs to the opposite party No.2 and her husband and they have encroached some part of land of the applicant by way of constructing a boundary wall. Thereafter, when the applicant was building a foundation in his land, the husband of the opposite party No.2 stopped him from doing so and stated that the land of the applicant belongs to him. She further submits that after the dispute, the applicant moved an application before
the authorities concerned for demarcation of the land of the applicant on 19.07.2016 and on the said application, the demarcation proceeding was completed and a report dated 23.07.2016 was submitted, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the husband of the opposite party No.2 is creating hindrance in the possession of the land of the applicant, while he has no concern or right over the said land and the report also mentioned to deliver the possession of the said land to the applicant with police force.
Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the when the husband of the opposite party No.2 failed in his attempts to grab the land of the applicant illegally then he alongwith his wife lodged the present case under Section 323, 452, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C. against the applicant. She further submits that a civil case is also pending between the parties in respect of the property/plot No.574/0.076 hectare bearing Civil Case No.212/2015 (Naresh vs. Ramdatt) this fact has been mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the complaint made by opposite party No.2 against the applicant and in paragraph No.7 of the said compliant, it has been clearly stated by the opposite party No.2 that if the applicant is not punished as soon as possible then the very purpose of lodging this complaint against the applicant will become infructuous, thus, she submits that the matter is purely civil in nature and the opposite party No.2 and her husband have tried to give colour to a civil dispute into a criminal prosecution so that in fear of criminal prosecution, the applicant may compromise the situation and take back the civil cases pending between them. She next added that the impugned summoning order dated 18.08.2022 is passed without considering the aforesaid facts, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus, she prays for some interim relief.
In view of the above, the matter requires consideration on fact and law both.
Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of State-opposite party No.1.
Let notice be issued to opposite party No.2 by R.P.A.D. returnable at an early date.
Steps to be taken within ten days' from today.
Learned A.G.A. as well as opposite party No.2 may file their counter affidavits within four weeks' from today. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to learned Counsel for the applicant for filing rejoinder affidavit.
Accordingly, list/put up this case on 22.08.2024.
Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in pursuance of the summoning order dated 18.08.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao in Compliant Case No.4886/2021 (New No.214/2023) (Shyamkali vs. Saket Gupta) by means of which the applicant has been summoned to face the trial under Section 323, 452, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C., Police Station-Safipur, District-Unnao and entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.4886/2021 (New No.214/2023) (Shyamkali vs. Saket Gupta) pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (CAW), Unnao shall remain stayed so far it relates to the present applicant.
Order Date :- 25.4.2024 Piyush/-
Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the summoning order and criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process of court in a civil dispute?
Whether the criminal complaints under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 and 354 IPC are false and motivated by enmity?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Saket Gupta
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.
Another
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
