Allahabad High Court
Chand Muni vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 December, 2022
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 22.11.2022 Delivered on 09.12.2022 Court No. - 84 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5821 of 2014 Applicant :- Chand Muni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Pratap Singh,Girish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Brief facts of present case are that complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi on 08.07.2010 that when complainant has moved an application to remove encroachment over Araji No. 68, situate in Village Shahpur by one Kishan, his efforts were failed due to act of applicant, a Revenue Officer and other persons and in order to harass the complainant proceedings were initiated against him under Section 122B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and when he wanted to take information, the applicant hurled filthy and abusive language.
2. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Varanasi vide order dated 07.08.2010 rejected application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with liberty to Opposite Party No. 2 to file a criminal complaint. This order was challenged by way of filing Application under Section 482 No. 33343 of 2010 and this Court vide order dated 26.10.2010 directed Magistrate to pass a fresh order on application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. As such subsequently Magistrate allowed application and passed a direction to lodged FIR. According FIR being Case Crime No. 247 of 2010, under Sections 167, 193, 219, 120B, 504 IPC, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi on 19.11.2010. The investigation was conducted on above referred FIR, however, it was culminated in a final report. Magistrate concerned rejected the final report and directed to conduct further investigation vide order dated 28.07.2011 and on the basis of further investigation a charge sheet was submitted on which cognizance of offence was taken and applicant alongwith two co-accused were summoned.
3. Sri Gyanendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for applicant, submitted that applicant, a Revenue Officer, has submitted a report in the proceedings under Section 122B of ZA & LR Act pending at relevant time before Court of Tehsildar that Opposite Party No. 2 has encroached a land belonging to Gaon Sabha unauthorisedly and earlier also he has encroached the land of Kabristan wherein he was facing proceedings under Sections 122B of ZA & LR Act. Learned counsel further submitted that in the said proceedings an order was passed on 30.12.2017 whereby report submitted by applicant at the relevant time was found to be true and Opposite Party No. 2 (complainant) was directed to vacate encroached Gaon Sabha land and that in case of default, coercive proceedings shall be taken against him. He further submitted that criminal proceedings initiated against applicant was to wreak vengeance against him.
4. Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA appearing for State has tried to oppose the submissions, however, he was not able to dispute the document on record that bone of contention that report submitted by applicant during discharge of his official work was found to be correct and on basis of said report an adverse order was passed against Opposite Party No. 2 (complainant) to remove encroachment from a Gaon Sabha land.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
6. From above submission it is crystal clear that since report of applicant was given in discharge of his official duties based on material available and which became basis of an order passed against Opposite Party No. 2 that he has encroached Gaon Sabha land and was directed to vacate the said land, therefore, at the face of record, criminal proceedings launched by Opposite Party No. 2 was nothing but in order to harass the applicant and present case squarely falls under the circumstances enumerated in para 102(7) of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335, which is reproduced as under:
"102 (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
7. There is another factor which is apt to mention here that Magistrate has also not taken note that proceedings were launched without any prior sanction as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. when apparently the report was submitted by the applicant during discharge of his official duties.
8. In view of above, application is allowed. Charge sheet dated 27.03.2012 and cognizance order dated 12.10.2012 as well as criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4496 of 2012 (Case Crime No. 247 of 2010) (State vs. Ram Raj Pandey and others), under Sections 167, 193, 219, 120B, 504 IPC, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, are hereby quashed. Applicant is also entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by Opposite Party No. 2 within four weeks from today.
Order Date :-09.12.2022 AK