Jagram Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Om Prakash-VII, J.—This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists with the prayer to set-aside the order dated 10.9.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Maudaha, District - Hamirpur in Complaint Case No. 64 of 2013 under Sections 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 IPC, Police Station - Maudaha, District - Hamirpur and discharge the revisionists from the aforesaid offences. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.

It appears that a Civil Suite was pending between the parties and opposite party No. 2 filed the aforesaid complaint against the revisionists in which the Court below recorded evidence under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the complainant vide order dated 5.7.2014 summoned the revisionists, namely, Smt. Premmani Edward Vishwanath, Edvin Vishwanath, Shyam Singh, Jagram Singh, Kaushendra Singh, Shiv Virendra Bhatnagar, Nagendra Singh, Parmeshwari Dayal and Shanker Dayal for the offence under Sections 465 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 IPC. Aggrieved with the said order, the revisionists filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 32522 of 2014 for quashing the aforesaid summoning order dated 5.7.2014. By the order dated 20.8.2014 the said application was disposed of. The said order 20.8.2014 is quoted below:

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This Crl. Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceeding of complaint case No. 64 of 2013, under section 465 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 IPC, P.S. Maudaha, District Hamirpur and further prayer is to stay the proceeding of aforesaid complaint case.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the land in question belongs to one Bheem Maseeh, who had two sons namely Sukhnandan Bhima and Vishwanath Bhima. The land was purchased by the complainant from Sukhnandan and the applicant purchased from the heirs of Vishwanath Bhima. The applicants are bonafide purchaser. The land purchased by the complainant from Sukhnandan was not purchased by the applicants. Even suit for cancellation of the sale deed has been filed by son of Sukhnandan against complainant, opposite party No. 2. Hence entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.

Learned AGA opposed aforesaid prayer.

Considered the submission of counsel for the parties. If contention of the applicant is correct then complaint is not maintainable even otherwise it is a dispute of civil nature. Hence when complaint is filed then duty of court concerned is to scrutinize the material carefully so any innocent person is not prosecuted and held guilty. Since the disputed question of facts requires appreciation of evidence hence at this initial stage it is not a fit case for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. The defence version of the applicants has to be considered by the court concerned at appropriate stage.

If objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicant within 30 days through counsel, it is expected that the court concerned will consider and decide the same on merit by speaking and reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible, at appropriate stage, in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties.

Till application is decided on merit by the court concerned, at appropriate stage, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants.

However, if application is rejected, applicants appear before the courts below within 30 days and apply for bail, it is expected that the same will be considered and disposed off expeditiously, if possible on the same day, in view of the principles laid down by Full Bench of this Court in case of Amarawati and Another (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P., and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, .

With these observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby finally disposed off."

It further appears that in compliance of the directions given in the said order dated 20.8.2014 passed by this Court, the revisionists moved application for discharge before the Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate concerned after hearing the parties vide impugned order rejected the discharge application. Hence this revision.

I have heard Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists, Shri R.R. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned AGA appearing for the State opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the dispute is purely of civil nature. In regard to the disputed land both the parties have filed separate Civil Suites which are pending and the Civil Court can only decide the dispute said to have been existed between the parties. No offence, as alleged in the complaint and the summoning order, is made-out against the revisionists. At this stage, referring to the paragraph Nos. 8,9,10 and 11 of the affidavit annexed with the revision, learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the revisionists are bona-fide purchaser of the disputed land, they purchased the disputed land from one Sukhnandan Bhima, therefore, summoning order is bad in the eye of law. Despite specific directions having been given by this Court, the pleas raised before the court below were not considered in right perspective. Hence, the impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity. It was further submitted that revenue record also supports the case of the revisionists. The application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. can be moved at any stage of the proceeding.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned AGA appearing for the State have submitted that all the facts raised before this Court were raised by the revisionists before the Magistrate concerned and the same were considered while passing the impugned order. From the evidence adduced by the complainant, a prima-facie case is made out against the revisionists. The Court below has rightly rejected the application as the grounds raised by the revisionists before the court below could be analyzed only after recording evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.. It was further submitted that the revisionists have opportunity to raise all these pleas before the court concerned at appropriate stage. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record carefully.

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that all the disputed questions raised before this Court in this proceeding were raised before the concerned Magistrate in support of the discharge application. The concerned Magistrate also considered the submissions in detail comparing the boundaries of the sale-deed said to have been executed by the parties in the matter. Observations recorded by the Magistrate concerned while passing the impugned order cannot be termed to be illegal or perverse or improper. Since there is a prima-facie sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial, therefore, the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application.

It may be noted here that at the stage of passing of summoning order, the court dealing with the matter has to see only prima-facie case in light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, , State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and another Shri S.A. Khan, , State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Others, . There is no requirement of law to analyze the evidence at par with trial. It is also worthy to note that pendency of civil suit for the disputed land between the parties will not create any bar in initiation of criminal proceeding. It is settled legal position that if a prima-facie case for commission of an offence under the provisions of the Penal Laws is made out from the allegations contained in a complaint or a charge- sheet, the High Court would refrain from invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. or the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and shall not set at naught such criminal prosecution only because the allegations against the accused persons have emanated from an agreement of ''civil nature''. To initiate criminal proceeding, the complainant/informant has to establish before the concerned Magistrate the necessary ingredients to constitute the said offence. In the present matter, a perusal of the record/impugned order clearly shows that while rejecting the discharge application the Court below has analyzed the matter as required under the law at that stage.

In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order dated 10.9.2015 warranting interference by this Court. The revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

The revision is accordingly dismissed.