Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Radha Raman vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 30 August, 2022

Bench: Ajay Rastogi, B.V. Nagarathna

                                                      1

                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).            OF 2022
              (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 21 of 2022)


     RADHA RAMAN                                                       ….APPELLANT(S)

                                          VERSUS


     STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.                                   ….RESPONDENT(S)




                                                 ORDER

Leave granted.

The instant appeal is preferred by the appellant who served as an Executive Engineer and later stood retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation assailing the Order dated 23 rd February, 2021 dismissing the criminal revision petition preferred at the instance of the appellant.

The appellant was an Executive Engineer posted at the relevant time in Nalkoop Khand, Deoria. A tube well was to be installed at the Signature Not Verified behest of Member of Parliament from the funds allotted to him, Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2022.09.02 18:41:05 IST Reason: pursuant thereof, a Committee headed by District Magistrate, Deoria earmarked that the tube well is to be located at Village Danaur, Block  2 Bhatani, accordingly, the tube well was installed after taking the consent of the co­sharer.

After a lapse of four years, an application was filed by one of the co­sharer stating inter alia that his consent was not obtained as he was one of the co­sharer, which was enquired into by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Deoria on the direction of the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. The A.D.M. on 9 th October, 2012 returned a finding that the consent was obtained of all the co­sharers including the de­facto complainant.

Aggrieved by the order dated 9th October 2012, respondent no. 2, the de­facto complainant approached the High Court by filing of Writ­ C No. 9752 of 2013 (Brij Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad by order dated 21st February, 2013 with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to approach the competent civil Court, if so advised, and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law.

Instead of approaching the civil Court in compliance of the Order dated 21st February, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High  3 Court of Allahabad, respondent no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC which was treated as a complaint case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, who, after recording the statement of the de­facto complainant under Section 200 CrPC, issued a summon against the appellant by Order dated 15 th April 2014, which came to be challenged by filing of a discharge application under Section 245(2) CrPC but that came to be dismissed by the learned trial Judge by Order dated 12th April, 2016 and the High Court also, without assigning any reason under Order dated 23 rd February, 2021, in a cavalier manner, dismissed the criminal revision petition which became the subject matter of challenge in an appeal before us.

After we have heard learned counsel for the parties, in our considered view, the Order dated 5 th August, 2013 pursuant to which the learned Magistrate treated application of respondent no. 2 under Section 156(3) CrPC as a complaint case and so also the statement of the de­facto complainant recorded under Section 200 CrPC and the statement of the supporting witnesses, there is not even an iota of evidence came on record which, in any manner, could allege that the appellant had any role to play either in assisting or instigating or in facilitating in obtaining the alleged forged signatures of the de­facto  4 complainant who is one of the co­sharer out of the shareholders of the subject land on which the tube well was installed under the orders of the appellant.

To the contrary, there are three co­sharers of the subject land and one of the co­sharer raised a grievance but no prima facie material is on record which could connect at least the present appellant of his participation in the commission of crime as alleged but the application filed by the appellant, in the first instance, came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate by an Order dated 18 th May, 2015 without even appreciating the bare facts available on record and also the criminal revision petition preferred by the appellant assailing the order of the trial Court came to be dismissed under the order impugned in a cavalier manner.

In the absence of there being any prima facie material available on record which, in any manner, could connect the appellant of his participation in the commission of crime as alleged, in this factual background if still the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, it would be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law.  5

Consequently, the appeal stands allowed and the summoning order consequent to the proceedings qua the appellant in Complaint Case No. 2967 of 2013 (Brijnath Vs. Adhishashi Abhiyanta, Salempur, Deoria) under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC, P.S. Salempur, District­Deoria stands quashed and set aside.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dispose of accordingly.

..………………………J. (AJAY RASTOGI) ...………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) NEW DELHI AUGUST 30, 2022.

ITEM NO.8                 COURT NO.9                 SECTION II

                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)      No(s).    21/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-02-2021 in CRLR No. 1384/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad, Lucknow Bench) RADHA RAMAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 375/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 30-08-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
           HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA


For Petitioner(s)    Mr.Ajit Kumar Thakur, Adv.
                     Mr.Ram Nath, Adv.
                     Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR

For Respondent(s)    Mr.Vinod Diwakar, Adv.
                     Ms. Shreyase Agrawal, Adv.
                     Ms.Alka Sinha, Adv.
                     Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR

                     Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Adv.
                     Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. The operative part of the order reads as under:

“In the absence of there being any prima facie material available on record which, in any manner, could connect the appellant of his participation in the commission of crime as alleged, in this factual background if still the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, it would be nothing but a  7 clear abuse of the process of law.

Consequently, the appeal stands allowed and the summoning order consequent to the proceedings qua the appellant in Complaint Case No. 2967 of 2013 (Brijnath Vs. Adhishashi Abhiyanta, Salempur, Deoria) under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC, P.S. Salempur, District-Deoria stands quashed and set aside.

“ Pending application(s),if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(MONIKA DEY)                                      (ASHWANI THAKUR)
COURT MASTER (NSH)                           ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS
                (Signed order is placed on the file)