Neeraj Bansal vs State of Uttaranchal and Another

Dharam Veer, J.—This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the order dated 12.8.2005 and also to quash the charge sheet and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1355 of 2005, State v. Devendra Kuksal and Ors. u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC and 4/10 of the U.P. Protection of Trees Act 1976 {hereinafter to be referred as the Act}, pending before J.M.-I, Dehradun.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

In brief, the facts of the case are that on a complaint of illegal possession of the Municipality land and on being inspected, a bridge was found being constructed over the land of Municipality over culvert. The work was stopped immediately and when the revenue records were inspected it was found that in the name of petitioner, a land bearing Khasra No. 44-Ka 01.34 hect., having transferable rights, was registered. It was also stated that the petitioner had applied for transfer of possession in the Municipality Property No. 34/3 and also produced two registered deeds bearing Property No. 34/3, however the Khasra number was found cut. When both the registered deeds were demanded from the Registrar Officer, it was found that there the property No. 44/K was written and both the registered deeds are in the name of Devendra Kukshal. Hence it was stated that the fabrication was made in the records and thereby encroachment was made in excess of the own property by the petitioner and co-accused. Besides a report was given by Municipality that the encroachment over the other properties bearing Khasra No. 44-Ka as well as some partial encroachments were also made in the other Khasra Nos. 41, 42 and 43. Further some trees have also been cut and some trees were tried to be got dried. Thereafter the matter was investigated and during investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the petitioner, on the basis of which the J.M. First, Dehradun vide order dated 12.8.2005 took cognizance and summoned the petitioner u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC and 4(10) of the Act. Hence this petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against him and the court below has wrongly summoned him. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2, the statements of the witnesses, namely, Sushil Kumar Kureel (respondent No. 2), Madhvanand Uniyal, Rajendra Prasad Uniyal, Anand Singh Rawat, R.N. Onkar, G.P. Singh, Anil Kala, Krishnanad Chaubey and Rajesh Naithani, I find that the offences punishable u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC and 4(10) of the Act are prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioner to face trial.

Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as that of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the FIR as well as the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 13.06.2006 is vacated.