Allahabad High Court
Vidya Devi And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. . And Another on 9 February, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2579 of 2023 Applicant :- Vidya Devi And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. . And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shree Prakash Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Shree Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Arti Agarwal, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary corrections in the prayer of the application.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Vidya Devi, Shivlal, Madari alias Ram Milan, Mallu alias Ram Sajeewan and Ravi, with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 17.10.2022 issued by Judicial Magistrate IInd, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Case No. 17/2016 (Jai Narayan vs. Satyanarayan and others), under Sections 323, 506, 504, 427, 418, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Gopiganj, District Bhadohi, including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 17 of 2016, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi.
The facts of the present case are that the opposite party no. 2/complainant filed a complaint against nine accused persons including the applicants namely Satya Narayan, Vijay Kumar, Manoj, Sabhajit, Vidya Devi, Shivlal, Madari@Ram Milan, Mallu@Ram Sajeevan and Ravi, alleging therein that accused Satya Narayan is his real brother. Partition of land being Arazi No. 121, 122 situated at north of G.T. was done by the court concerned and both brothers are in possession of their respective shares of land. The accused Satya Narayan sold land to accused Vidya Devi wife of Shiv Lal by showing wrong boundary of his land. Vijay Kumar son of Satya Narayan and Sabhajeet son of Munni Lal were the witnesses of the sale deed. On 23.11.2015 at about 3.00 A.M. accused Satya Narayan, Vijay, Manoj, Shiv Lal, Smt. Vidya Devi, Madari@ Ram Milan, Mallu@Ram Sajeevan and Ravi came there with lathi, danda, saria, fawra and ramma, abused him with filthy language and breaking his boundary wall and pillars, when he resisted, the accused tried to kill him. The incident was seen by his son Raj Kumar and his daughter-in-law Baijanti. The accused threatened him with dire consequences if the incident is reported to anyone and rest of the family members would be burnt by pouring acid on them. The statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses Rajkumar as P.W.-1 and Baijanti as P.W.-2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they have supported the version of the complaint, after which the trial court vide order dated 5.9.2017, has summoned the applicants to face trial. The accused-applicants preferred a criminal revision against the summoning order. The revisional court vide order dated 16.7.2018 allowed the revision and remanded the matter back before the trial court for considering the case on merit. Thereafter, the trial court vide order dated 07.10.2022 again summoned the applicants to face trial under Sections 323, 506, 504, 427, 418, 420 I.P.C. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has thus been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the co-accused Satyanarain the real brother of the opposite party no. 2, executed a sale deed dated 27.8.2015 of his share of land in favour of the applicant no. 1/Vidya Devi and her name has also got mutated in the revenue records. It is argued that the opposite party no. 2 filed a civil suit being Suit No. 566 of 2015, against the applicant no. 2 in respect of said property for permanent prohibitory injunction on 3.9.2015 before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhadohi, Gyanpur which is still pending. It is argued that the complainant and his family members assaulted the applicants and threatened her to get the sale deed withdrawn pursuant to which an F.I.R. dated 3.12.2015 was lodged by the applicant against the opposite party no.2 and his family members under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 427, 452 I.P.C., being Case Crime No. 455 of 2015 in which charge sheet has been submitted against the opposite party no. 2 and his family members and proceeding of the said case is pending before the trial court. It is argued that the opposite party no. 2 has filed false and malicious complaint against the applicants repeatedly with the intention to grab the said land. It is argued that earlier the opposite party no. 2 filed another complaint dated 18.4.2016 against the applicants in which another Bench of this Court has granted interim protection to the applicants. It is further argued that son of the opposite party no. 2 has also lodged a complaint in respect to the same plot against the applicants in which also this Court has granted interim protection to the applicants vide order dated 4.9.2018 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 30467 of 2018. It is argued that the present dispute, if any, between the parties is civil in nature which has been given a colour of criminal case. It is argued that the trial court while passing the impugned summoning order did not consider the fact that malicious complaint has been filed on account of various civil and criminal litigations between the parties and as such the same deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing and argued that the applicants are named in the complaint, in the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. There are allegations against them of cheating, assaulting and abusing the complainant. It is argued that in so far as the arguments with regard to continuous complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 with the same allegations are concerned, in the present complaint the time of incident is different from the other incidents. It is argued that the trial court has considered every aspect of the matter and found that a prima facie case against them is made out and then summoned the accused-applicants to face trial. It is argued that the present application be dismissed.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are named in the complaint, in the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. There are allegations against the accused of assaulting, abusing and threatening the complainant. The trial court after inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and considering every aspect of the matter, found prima facie case against the applicants and then summoned them to face trial. In so far as the continuous complaint filed against the applicants with the same allegations is concerned, in the present complaint the time of incident is different. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the same.
The application lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Naresh