Allahabad High Court
Radhey Shyam Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 25 November, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77938 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10667 of 2024 Applicant :- Radhey Shyam Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Saumya Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Ms. Divya Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present applicant has been filed by the applicant with following prayer "i. To quash the impugned summoning order dated 30.05.2024 and chargesheet dated 19.01.2024 filed in Criminal Case No. 206/2024 (State Vs. Radhey Shyam) arising out of First Information Report No. 0007 of 2024 dated 10.01.2024 under sections 447, 188 I.P.C. at Police Station Katka, District Ambedkar Nagar pending before Judicial Magistrate, Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar, in the interest of justice.
ii. To quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 206/2024 (State Vs. Radhey Shyam) arising out of First Information Report No. 0007 of 2024 dated 10.01.2024 under sections 447, 188 I.P.C. at Police Station Katka, District Ambedkar Nagar pending before Judicial Magistrate, Tanda, District - Ambedkar Nagar, in the interest of justice."
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case is not maintainable. Cognizance taken on the charge sheet submitted in the matter is illegal. Referring to the State of Uttar Pradesh Amendment of Section 441 IPC, it is further submitted that no notice was issued to the applicant prior to lodging of F.I.R. hence on this score also proceeding of the aforesaid criminal case is an abuse of the process of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rahtu Lal @ Rahtu Ram @ Divyanand and others Vs. State of U.P. and another decided on 25.3.2005.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer.
Considered the aforesaid and perused the records.
In this matter charge sheet has been submitted for the offence under Section 447, 188 IPC, cognizance has been taken and trial was started without considering the effect of State of Uttar Pradesh Amendment in Section 441 IPC.
For proper appreciation of submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be useful to quote the provision of Section 441 IPC, which is as under.
"441. Criminal Trespass.- Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, o, having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence.
or, having entered into or upon such property, whether before or after the coming into force of the Criminal Law (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1961, with the intention of taking unauthorised possession or making unauthorised use of such property fails to withdraw from such property or its possession or use, when called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writing, duly served upon him, by the date specified in the notice, is said to commit "criminal trespass"."
[Uttar Pradesh Act No. 31 of 1961, Sec. 2 (w.e.f. 13.11.1961).] If the legal requirement contained under Section 441 IPC as amended vide State of Uttar Pradesh Amendment is taken into consideration, it is clear that until and unless proper notice as required under 441 IPC is served upon the trespasser, criminal prosecution cannot be launched.
Since legal requirement as provided under Section 441 IPC for sending of notice to trespasser is not fulfilled, therefore, criminal prosecution started on the basis of charge sheet submitted in the matter is the abuse of the process of law as has been held by this Court in the case of Rahtu Lal @ Rahtu Ram @ Divyanand and others (Supra).
In so far as the offence under Section 188 IPC is concerned, after taking note of observations made in the judgment(s) passed by this Court in the case of Ajay Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:48172), Israr Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in, 2024 SCC OnLine All 208 and Ashish Kumar Tiwari @ Rahul and 27 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine All 2798, this Court, in the facts of this case, is of the view that the Court concerned cannot proceed against the applicant for the offence under Section 188 IPC.
Thus, the application is allowed.
The entire proceedings arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 0007 of 2024, quoted above, are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 25.11.2024/Mohit Singh/-