Ram Suresh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Hon''ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, leaned A.G.A. and perused the record.

This petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings of the case no. 767 of 2010, under Sections 504, 506 and 392 I.P.C. pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-III, Basti.

The opposite party no. 2 had moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants and other persons in respect of the incident dated 17.11.2006 on 18.1.2007 that the applicants had taken away the Mahua woods and when the complainant objected they used abusive language and threatened him dire consequences. Upon the direction of the learned court below the first information report was registered and the case was investigated by the police, which was culminated into final report submitted on 25.2.2007. Thereafter protest petition was filed by the opposite party no. 2, which was treated as complaint and the statement of the complainant along with two witnesses, namely, Hridaya Ram and Israil were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively and the court below arrived at the conclusion that prima facie offence is made out against the applicants and as such passed the impugned summoning order dated 23.3.2010.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that no offence is made out against the applicants u/s 392 I.P.C. as the witnesses during the investigation have disowned that any Mahua tree was fallen there. They had only disclosed that there was a tamarind tree, which was in the occupation of Gram Pradhan, Kripa Ram Verma, therefore, the entire allegations made in the application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. is falsified by the statements of the witnesses and the police had rightly submitted the final report against the applicants.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has contended that prima facie offence is made out against the applicants and there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below and the applicants can approach the court below to raise their defence at the appropriate stage.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court u/s 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 in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The instant case is not one of the excetpional case to scuttle the prosecution at its inception.

The prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings is refused and the petition is dismissed.

However, it is directed that the applicants shall appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided, if possible on the same day keeping in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another v. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon''ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.