Allahabad High Court
Anirudha Lal @ Anirudha Sriwastava vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 26 November, 2020
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 29 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2771 of 2020 Applicant :- Anirudha Lal @ Anirudha Sriwastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishwa Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard Sri Vishwa Nath Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.
By means of the present application, the applicant has assailed the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.3388 of 2010 (Kanhaiya Singh Tomar Vs. Anirudh Srivastava (Lekhpal) & Others), under Sections 218, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nanpara, District Bahraich pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich. Learned counsel for the applicant has also assailed the order dated 10.01.2020 whereby the application for discharge has been rejected as well as the summoning order dated 04.10.2010.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant at the relevant time was posted as Lekhpal where according to the complainant-Smt Ram Pyari alias Ram Pati was Sankramaniya Bhumidhar Kastkar and was in possession of Khata No.888, 688, 872 and 905. Initially the land was recorded in the name of her husband-Samaydeen Singh. Smt Ram Pyari alias Ram Pati died on 29.07.2007 and at that time Smt. Neelam Singh was her unmarried daughter and remaining three daughters namely, Smt. Kumud Singh, Smt. Kusum Singh and Smt. Gudiya Singh were married daughters. In this way according to rule, the name of Smt. Neelam Singh was to be recorded in the revenue records in place of Smt. Rampati in respect of the aforesaid khatas as being the unmarried daughter, through Pa.Ka.-11, but it is alleged that the applicant sought illegal gratification for mutating the name of Smt. Neelam Singh and when the said gratification was not given to him in order to cause loss and also to give benefit to Smt. Kumud Singh and Smt. Gudiya Singh filed a wrong report for mutating the name of all the four daughter in the Khatauni.
After investigation and recording the statement of witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C., a summoning order was issued on 04.10.2010 which was assailed in revision before the Sessions Judge, Bahraich on 05.05.2011, which was also rejected on 08.08.2019. Against the said order, the applicant had approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was disposed of by giving liberty to the applicant to move an application for discharge. The applicant has moved the application for discharge, which has been rejected by means of impugned order.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the impugned order, the learned trial court has discussed the entire factual aspects of the case. He has given the valid reasons stating that the death of Smt. Ram Pyari, the said land was to be mutated in the name of Smt. Neelam Singh, but instead of that he has recorded the name of all the four sisters just because of the fact that they were unable to give illegal gratification. He has considered the entire evidence available on record. It has been submitted by counsel for the applicant that the complainant did not have any locus standi to file the complaint. The argument raised by the counsel for the applicant does not have any merits in the light of the fact that there is no concept of locus standi with regard to a person who can inform the police or the Magistrate with regard to the offence.
A perusal of Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. would indicate that a Magistrate can take cognizance of any offence in any of the three contingencies:-
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
Clearly the concept of locus standi with regard to giving information of a complaint constituting of an offence can be given by any person, therefore, the argument of counsel for the applicant deserves to be rejected, inasmuch as, there is no infirmity with the complaint having been lodged by Kanhaiya Singh Tomar. The trial court has rightly rejected the application for discharge, inasmuch as, there was prima facie material and evidence against the applicant for proceeding with the trial.
I do not find any merit in the present application. Accordingly, the application is rejected.
Order Date :- 26.11.2020 Ravi Kant (Alok Mathur, J.)