Jagdev Singh Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Court No. - 29

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2928 of 2025

Applicant :- Jagdev Singh Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Shruti Kumar,Sukhmani Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceedings as well as any consequential proceedings as well as the impugned summoning order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 48, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 126897 of 2022 (Ajeet Kumar Yadav vs. Jagdev Yadav and others), under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C.

¶8

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and they were never involved in committing any offence. She submits that initially, an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 bearing FIR No. 637 of 2022, under Sections 504, 384 IPC & Section 4/10 of Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees in Rural and Hill Areas Act, 1976, on 30.10.2022 and thereafter, the investigation proceeded and the investigating officer after thorough investigation, submitted the final report. She added that as soon as the final report was filed, on the very next date, an application under Section 156(3) CrPC was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 while making almost same allegations regarding setting ablaze one of the black plum tree and thereafter, the learned trial court while invoking the jurisdiction under Section 202(1) CrPC sought a

¶9

report and the report was submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Lucknow on 27.9.2023, wherein it was found that there is no damage of the tree and that is still standing live over the land in question and because of such enmity between the parties, the allegations are being raised against each other.

¶10

She argued that the learned trial court has committed manifest error while not considering the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Lucknow dated 27.9.2023, which in fact favours the stand of the applicants. She next added that the present proceeding of the complaint case is not only in retaliation, but it is also instituted with malafide intention. In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance on a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2015 (4) SCC 609 . The relevant paragraph nos. 51 and 52 thereof are reproduced herein under:

¶11

"On the other hand, Section 204 of the Code deals with the issue of process, if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This Section relates to commencement of a criminal proceeding. If the Magistrate taking cognizance of a case (it may be the Magistrate receiving the complaint or to whom it has been transferred under Section 192), upon a consideration of the materials before him (i.e., the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses if present, or report of inquiry, if any), thinks that there is a prima facie case for proceeding in respect of an offence, he shall issue process against the accused.

¶12

A wide discretion has been given as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into Court merely because a complaint has been filed. If a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction."

¶13

Referring the aforesaid, she submits that it has specifically been held by the Apex Court that no person ought to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed unless a prima facie case is made out against him. She has also supported her

¶14

version relying on a judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 AIR 604. The relevant paragraph no. 102 thereof is quoted herein under:

¶15

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶16

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶17

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

¶18

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶19

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

¶20

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶21

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶22

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

¶23

motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

¶24

Referring the aforesaid, she submits that the case of the present applicants is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgements aforesaid. She added that the further criminal proceeding would amount to harassment of the applicants, therefore, the criminal proceedings against them may be quashed.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the learned trial court has rightly proceeded in the matter as after recording the statement of the witnesses and the complainant, learned Magistrate has passed the order impugned.

¶26

In fact, the State has failed to substantiate regarding nonconsideration of the report of the Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow which was sought while invoking the jurisdiction of Section 202(1) CrPC and further, prima facie it seems to be a case attended with malafide, thus, matter requires consideration.

¶27

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

¶28

Steps be taken within a week.

¶29

If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly.

¶30

List/put up this case in the 2nd week of May, 2025.

¶31

In the meantime, opposite parties may file their counter affidavits.

¶32

Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 126897 of 2022 shall remain stayed.