Ajab Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83770

Court No. - 87

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13770 of 2016

Applicant :- Ajab Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Rai,Rakesh Pande (Senior Adv.),Vinod Kumar Singh(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-opposite party- no. 1 and perused the record.

¶7

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the further proceeding in Case No. 9044 of 2015 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar Lal and others) pending in the court Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar arising out of Case Crime No. 266 of 2013 under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 406, 409, 219 IPC, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Further prayer has been made to quash the Charge-sheet no. 30-B dated 31.03.2015.

¶8

Factual aspect of the matter is that initially a PIL was filed in which it is alleged that some of the Consolidation Officer in order to extend benefit to few persons, allotted State land which causes great loss to the State Government. On this allegation, inquiry was ordered and a Committee was constituted for fixing responsibility. After due inquiry the

¶9

Committee had submitted report on 13.02.2012, in which it was held as follows:-

¶10

" समममतननअपननररपपररमदनपनक 13.02.2012 पसततमकयपहह, जजसकन अवललकनसनपथमदषयपयहसपमबतहहआहहमकगपमजगनपपरअफजलपपर, परगनपदनककर, तहसनलवजनपदगकतमबपदनगरककचकबनदनपमकयपकन दकरपनलगभग 117 बनघपगपमसभपभभममकपगलतमभलयपनकनकरकनअथवप मवमभनचकबनदनपपजधकपररययदपरपअपनननयपयपलययममदपजखलमपकदमयकन मपधयमसनलगभगर355 करलडककगपमसभपभभममकलअपभररननयकमतपहहनचपई गई।समममतककजपनचररपलररकनआधपरपरसनबनजधतअजधकपररययवकमरचपररयय कनमवरदमवभपगनयकपयरवपहनमकयनजपननकनसपथ-सपथगपमसभपभभममकल पभवरततअमभलनखयममदजरमकयनजपननककभनकपयरवपहनककजपननहह।यहपकरर अतयनतगमभनरहहतथपइसकनसनबनधममआपदपरपवयमकगतअनपशवरमकयप जपनपअपनमकतहह।"

¶11

Further three member committee was appointed to look into the conduct of each of the officer involved and they further gave report on 20.09.2012, in which, the observation made by the Committee is as follows:-

¶12

" अततसभचन 'क' एवम 'ख' ममअनमकतअजधकपररयय/कमरचपररययकनदपरपगपमसभप भभममकलसनधनरपसनकमतपहहनचपयनगयनहह।जबमकसभचन 'म' ममअनमकतवपदयमम गपमसभपपभपमवतनहलननकनकपररगपमसभपकलकमतनहहपहहनचतनहह।सभचन 'क' और 'ख' ममअनमकतअजधकपररयय / कमरचपररययकनमवरदकपयरवपहनमकयन जपननककसनसतपमतककजपतनहह।सपथहनअनमतमअमभलनखबनपतनसमयकपय र त अजधकपररयय / कमरचपररययदपरपगपमसभपभभममसपरमकतककजपननकपपयपस मकयपजपनपथपजलनहहमकयपगयपहह।अततउकलपपरवपहनकनजलएइनकन मवरदभनकपयरवपहनककसनसतपमतककजपतनहह।"

¶13

Thereafter, the Consolidation Commissioner, vide letter dated 02.04.2013 requested the District Magistrate to lodge F.I.R. and investigate the matter. Subsequently F.I.R. was lodged on 18.05.2013 in Case Crime No. 266 of 2013, Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, under section 420 I.P.C. read with section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, in which the name of applicant was not surfaced. Thereafter police investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet on 31.03.2015, in which

¶14

name of applicant was surfaced and it is stated in the charge-sheet that :-

¶15

" इसखपररजपटनदपरननकभररचनपकनआधपरपरचकअजधकपरनअजबजसनहकन षडयनतसनखपररजपटपककजमननकपसवपमनबनपकरमपआवजपपपपमकयपजल लगभगरपयन 47 लपखरपयपकपसरकपरवएलएमसनकलनपकसपनहह।इसकन व 219 मवरदजपमरधपरप 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 बन, 409 आई०पन०सन०कपअपरपधहलनपपपयपजपतपहह।"

¶16

This charge-sheet has been assailed by the applicant by means of the instant application.

¶17

Sri. Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that the allegations made against the applicant are with respect to discharge of Official duties in his capacity as Consolidation Officer and as such, the orders passed by the applicant in adjudications under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are judicial proceedings in view of section 40 of the Act and are protected by section 49-A of the Act and the applicant is also liable to the protection of section 3 of the Judges Protection Act, 1985. He further submits that there is no criminal offence which is made out against the applicant and the entire charge sheet against the applicant is abuse of process of law.

¶18

He further submits that the order passed under Section 12 of the Act; whereby, a person was ordered to be recorded as Sankramaniya Bhumidari in view of the provisions of section 131-B of the ZA Act on the basis of the fact that he was recorded as Asankramaniya Bhumidar, i.e., the tenure holder without transferable rights, on the basis of a lease of 1970, which order was passed on the basis of a report of Lekhpal and the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated

¶19

26.12.1996 and assuming that the lease had been cancelled in 1970, the same was still under challenge before the Board of Revenue, and the Board of Revenue vide order dated 30.04.2014 had restored the matter and ordered for maintenance of status quo and the land in dispute was subject matter of adjudication before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

¶20

Learned Senior counsel further submits that any order passed by the applicant was in ignorance of the fact that the stay had been vacated by the Board of Revenue, which was not brought to the knowledge of the applicant in the report of the concerned subordinate Officers.

¶21

He further submits that investigation has been directed under the orders of the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime) and the investigation reports, filed thereafter, clearly indicate that even the investigating authorities are of the view that no offence is made out against the applicant, therefore, the impugned charge-sheet as well as entire criminal proceeding initiated against the applicant is liable to be quashed.

¶22

Per contra, learned AGA, Shri Shashi Dhar Pandey, submits that initially after filing of the P.I.L., inquiry was constituted and after the inquiry it was found that State has suffered huge loss. He further submits that on the request made by the Consolidation Commissioner, F.I.R. was lodged against the officers, who were involved in the scam. It is after investigation when the impugned charge-sheet was filed in which name of applicant was surfaced. He further submits that because of conspiracy the Government has

¶23

suffered a lost of Rs. 24 lakh and the allegation of conspiracy was corroborated in the evidence of witnesses, therefore, no interference is required by this Court in the on going proceedings.

¶24

Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, it is evident that on the face of P.I.L. an inquiry was conducted in the matter and after outcome of the inquiry, the Consolidation Commissioner wrote a letter and requested District Magistrate for lodging of the F.I.R. against the erring officers, which was entertained and F.I.R. was lodged against several persons in which applicant was not named, but, when police after due investigation submitted chargesheet on 31.03.2015 in the matter, the name of applicant was arrived.

¶25

Looking into the facts and averments raised on behalf of the applicant, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. The argument raised by the applicant are all disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court.

¶26

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 , and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and

¶27

another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶28

The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

¶29

However it is open for the applicant to take all its defence in the trial.

¶30

Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶31

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Bhanu

¶32

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajab Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajab Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases