Dismissed¶14

Santosh Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. the State of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Deptt. and Ors.

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2025A482/6584/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC; quashing of charge sheet; Section 173(2) CrPC; inherent powers; civil dispute over land title; offence against human body; Dharmatma Singh v. Harminder Singh; Case Crime No. 1353 of 2010, P.S. Kotwali, Balrampur; alternative remedy before Magistrate; application dismissed; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:254.

What did the court decide?

This Court declined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in view of the background that sale-deed particulars were not placed on record and the FIR alleged more than a civil dispute. ¶11

Santosh Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Deptt. and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to quash the charge sheet where the applicants contend that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and the prosecution is an abuse of process. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Apart from the alleged civil dispute, the allegations in the FIR also constituted an offence against the human body, which weighed against quashing.

¶12

Key takeaways

Following the Supreme Court's observation in Dharmatma Singh, inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC ought ordinarily to be avoided where the charge sheet under Section 173(2) CrPC is yet to be considered by the Magistrate.ratio¶13
The grounds and issues raised in the application could be effectively raised by the applicants before the Magistrate at the stage of consideration of the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC; accordingly, the application was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Manoj Bajaj, J.) — Application under S.482 CrPC by accused (Santosh Kumar Gupta and another) seeking quashing of charge sheet dated 06.01.2011 under S.173(2) CrPC in Case Crime No.1353 of 2010, P.S. Kotwali, Balrampur (Ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 552, 352, 323, 504 IPC), arising out of rival claims of title to 2 Bigha 14 Biswa of land purchased under Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh. HELD: (i) reliance placed on the Supreme Court in Dharmatma Singh v. Harminder Singh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2011, (3) RCR Criminal 38 — inherent powers under S.482 CrPC ordinarily should be avoided where the charge sheet under S.173(2) CrPC is yet to be considered by the Magistrate; (ii) apart from the alleged civil dispute, the FIR allegations also constitute an offence against the human body; (iii) the grounds raised are available to the applicants before the Magistrate at the stage of considering the final report. Application dismissed without any expression of opinion on merits. Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:254.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:254

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6584 of 2013

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Gupta And Anr. Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Deptt. And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaya Deep Singh,Kameshwar Nath Gupta,Yogendra Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Alok Kumar Srivastava,Imran Ahmad Abbasi,M. Waris Farooqui

¶6

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶7

Applicants being accused have approached this Court through this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 06th January, 2011 filed under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure in Case Crime No. 1353 of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 552, 352, 323, 504, 504 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, Balrampur, District Balrampur (Annexure No. 1).

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants-accused has argued that the opposite party no. 4 has falsely implicated the applicants in the above criminal case and the dispute between the parties, if any, is purely of civil nature. While referring to the FIR, learned counsel submits that the complainant has claimed himself to be the owner of immovable property measuring 2 Bigha, 14 Biswa, which was purchased by his father from the vendor Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh, and the accused persons with the assistance of co-accused Kenhu

¶9

Ram (Lekhpal) illegally got the mutation of said land entered in their names. Learned counsel submits that according to the complainant, the said entry was later on reversed and an enquiry was directed against the Lekhpal, but as per the complainant, on 20th August, 2010, the accused persons came to the immovable property and had brought cement, tiles and sand etc., where the complainant resisted and the accused persons gave beatings to him. Learned counsel submits that the same property which is claimed by the complainant under his ownership was in fact purchased by Shivaji Gupta, father of the applicants, therefore, it is evident that the prosecution of the applicants is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. He prays for quashing of the FIR.

¶10

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants-accused was repeatedly asked to furnish the details of the respective sale deeds relied upon by the rival parties to claim their ownership upon the same piece of immovable property, as they are claiming title under Maharaja Dharmendra Pratap Singh (vendor). Though, the civil litigation has reached at the stage of second appeal, as the decree passed against the applicants is under challenge, but the said material has not been placed on record.

¶11

In this background, this Court is not inclined to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, as apart from the

¶12

alleged civil dispute, the allegations in the FIR also constitute an offence against human body.

¶13

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmatma Singh vs. Harminder Singh & Ors. passed in Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2011 (3) RCR Criminal 38 has observed that where the charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is yet to be considered by the Magistrate, the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ordinarily should be avoided.

¶14

Since, the grounds and issues raised in this application can also be effectively raised by the applicants before the Magistrate at the stage of considering the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., therefore, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the application is hereby dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Brijesh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. the State of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Deptt. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. the State of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Deptt. and Ors.

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

Bushra Khurshid vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shivam Dubey and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Britannia Industries Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Sig Vs Union of India through Secy. Ministry of Health and Family Wel

Mohammad Shakeel U/S A407 Vs Bar Association Hardoi through Its Secretary.

Rinkoo Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Ors.