Munni Lal v. Narayan and others) arising out of Case Crime No

1. Heard Shri Chandra Prakash Tiwari, counsel for the applicant and Shri Vikash Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the Complaint Case No. 15 of 2017, (Munni Lal Vs. Narayan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2015, under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Charkhari, District Mahoba pending the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mahoba.

3. The case of the applicant is that a first information report stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and three other co-accused being FIR No. 0034 dated 23.02.2015 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 3(1)(4) of the SC/ST Act with an allegation that the opposite party no. 2 happens to be a reserved category and owns a land being Khatauni No. 582 Rakhba 1.3830 hectare Mauja Bumhauri Kala, Tehsil Charkhari, District Mahoba. When the opposite party no. 2 had gone to get his kishan credit card renewed and when the Khatauni in question came to be procured then it came to his knowledge that the applicant herein who happened to be the Lekpal had got the name recorded of the other co-accused who were the sons and the wife of one Munnilal Yadav. Allegation is that the name of the opposite party no. 2 stood scored out and in his place, the name of other co- accused were inserted in the revenue record, pursuant whereto a fraud had been played and offences have been committed. Post investigation, a final report came to be submitted and thereafter a protest petition came to be filed 2 A482 No. 4241 of 2019 and the same came to be registered as a complaint case and post recording of the statements of the opposite party no. 2, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., Keshav Das son of Dassi under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 16.08.2018, the applicant came to be summoned under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 3(1)(iv) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

4. Questioning the said order, the applicant herein preferred the present application in which on 01.02.2019, the following orders were passed: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was newly posted as a Lekhpal village Bamhauri Kalan, Tehsil Charkhari, District Mahoba. Two Khata Nos. 585 and 586 recorded in the name of one Munni Lal son of Muluwa caste Aahir (Yadav) and he was died about some year ago and two other Khata nos. 581 and 582 recorded in the name of Munni Lal son of Muluwa i.e. O.P. No. 2 in same mauja same village Bamhauri Kalan, due to blunder mistake name of the heirs of Munni Lal son of Muluwa caste-Aahir (Yadav) registered on Khatoni i.e. Khata no. 581 and 582 under the order of Tehsildar Charkhari, District Mahoba on 17.12.2012 but when this fact came to knowledge to the applicant in the month of February, 2012 clear report was filed by the applicant on 16.2.2013 before the Tehsildar Charkhari and the Tehsildar has deleted the name of heirs of Munni Lal son of Muluwa Caste Aahir (Yadav) in the Khata No. 581 and 582 on 18.2.2013. In fact it was clerical mistake. The applicant has not committed any offence. No offence is made out against the applicant. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purposes of harassment. The matter requires consideration. Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of State/O.P. No. 1. Issue notice to O.P. No. 2 who may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in Complaint Case No. 15 of 2017, (Munni Lal Vs. Narayan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2015, under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Charkhari, District Mahoba pending in the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mahoba." 3 A482 No. 4241 of 2019

5. Post issuance of the notice upon the opposite party no. 2. There is an office report dated 26.09.2023 that the notice has been served upon the opposite party no. 2, personally. Till the dictation of the order, nobody has put appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case for the simple reason that the applicant being a lekpal on the basis of the documents available on record had proceeded with the matter and got recorded the name of the legal heirs of the Munni Lal. Submission is that at no point of time, the applicant had committed any fraud or further committed any offences, particularly, when there happened to be two persons by the name, one being the opposite party no. 2, son of Muluwa Chamar and the other one, Munni Lal Yadav son of Muluwa Yadav. Submission is that on account of the fact that there were two person by one name which created a confusion and due to oversight and overlook, there happened to be an incorrect entry and on discovery of the said discrepancy, the revenue records came to be rectified and Khasra Khatuani issued in this regard. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant herein was newly posted as lekpal in village Bumhauri Kala, Tehsil Charkhari, District Mahoba and due to the said mistake, the said discrepancy crept in, however, the same cannot partake of any offence until and unless the mens rea is there. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the clerical mistake cannot said to be an act of commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the provisions contained under Section 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act has been wrongly invoked, particularly, when the applicant at no point of time had intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe in any place within the public view and further there is no question of wrongful occupation of cultivation of the land own or allotted too or notified to be of any competent authority of member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe in that regard. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710.

7. Learned State Law Officer submits that whatever might be the appicant has committed offence and the same stands born out from the allegations contained in the first information report and post submission of the final 4 A482 No. 4241 of 2019 report when the protest petition came to be preferred then the case stood transformed into a complaint case. He submits that offences are made out. L earned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant seek to prefer a discharge application, seeking discharge before the court below taking all legal and factual grounds which are available and permissible under law and a direction be issued to the court below to consider the same in correct perspective.

8. Looking into the overall facts of the case, the application is disposed of directing the applicant to submit a discharge application by 15.11.2025 to take all legal and factual grounds which are advisable and permissible under law and on the said motion, the court below shall decide the discharge application with most expedition strictly in accordance with law.

9. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action is being taken against the applicant in pursuance of the Complaint Case No. 15 of 2017, (Munni Lal Vs. Narayan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2015, under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Charkhari, District Mahoba pending in the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mahoba.

10. In the event of default of any of the conditions by the applicant as referred to above, the interim protection shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. October 6, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Chandra Prakash Tiwari, counsel for the applicant and Shri Vikash Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the Complaint Case No. 15 of 2017, (Munni Lal Vs. Narayan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2015, under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Charkhari, District Mahoba pending the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mahoba.

3. The case of the applicant is that a first information report stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and three other co-accused being FIR No. 0034 dated 23.02.2015 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 3(1)(4) of the SC/ST Act with an allegation that the opposite party no. 2 happens to be a reserved category and owns a land being Khatauni No. 582 Rakhba 1.3830 hectare Mauja Bumhauri Kala, Tehsil Charkhari, District Mahoba. When the opposite party no. 2 had gone to get his kishan credit card renewed and when the Khatauni in question came to be procured then it came to his knowledge that the applicant herein who happened to be the Lekpal had got the name recorded of the other co-accused who were the sons and the wife of one Munnilal Yadav. Allegation is that the name of the opposite party no. 2 stood scored out and in his place, the name of other co- accused were inserted in the revenue record, pursuant whereto a fraud had been played and offences have been committed. Post investigation, a final report came to be submitted and thereafter a protest petition came to be filed 2 A482 No. 4241 of 2019 and the same came to be registered as a complaint case and post recording of the statements of the opposite party no. 2, under Section 200 Cr.P.C., Keshav Das son of Dassi under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on 16.08.2018, the applicant came to be summoned under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 3(1)(iv) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

4. Questioning the said order, the applicant herein preferred the present application in which on 01.02.2019, the following orders were passed: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was newly posted as a Lekhpal village Bamhauri Kalan, Tehsil Charkhari, District Mahoba. Two Khata Nos. 585 and 586 recorded in the name of one Munni Lal son of Muluwa caste Aahir (Yadav) and he was died about some year ago and two other Khata nos. 581 and 582 recorded in the name of Munni Lal son of Muluwa i.e. O.P. No. 2 in same mauja same village Bamhauri Kalan, due to blunder mistake name of the heirs of Munni Lal son of Muluwa caste-Aahir (Yadav) registered on Khatoni i.e. Khata no. 581 and 582 under the order of Tehsildar Charkhari, District Mahoba on 17.12.2012 but when this fact came to knowledge to the applicant in the month of February, 2012 clear report was filed by the applicant on 16.2.2013 before the Tehsildar Charkhari and the Tehsildar has deleted the name of heirs of Munni Lal son of Muluwa Caste Aahir (Yadav) in the Khata No. 581 and 582 on 18.2.2013. In fact it was clerical mistake. The applicant has not committed any offence. No offence is made out against the applicant. The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purposes of harassment. The matter requires consideration. Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of State/O.P. No. 1. Issue notice to O.P. No. 2 who may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in Complaint Case No. 15 of 2017, (Munni Lal Vs. Narayan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2015, under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Charkhari, District Mahoba pending in the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mahoba." 3 A482 No. 4241 of 2019

5. Post issuance of the notice upon the opposite party no. 2. There is an office report dated 26.09.2023 that the notice has been served upon the opposite party no. 2, personally. Till the dictation of the order, nobody has put appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case for the simple reason that the applicant being a lekpal on the basis of the documents available on record had proceeded with the matter and got recorded the name of the legal heirs of the Munni Lal. Submission is that at no point of time, the applicant had committed any fraud or further committed any offences, particularly, when there happened to be two persons by the name, one being the opposite party no. 2, son of Muluwa Chamar and the other one, Munni Lal Yadav son of Muluwa Yadav. Submission is that on account of the fact that there were two person by one name which created a confusion and due to oversight and overlook, there happened to be an incorrect entry and on discovery of the said discrepancy, the revenue records came to be rectified and Khasra Khatuani issued in this regard. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant herein was newly posted as lekpal in village Bumhauri Kala, Tehsil Charkhari, District Mahoba and due to the said mistake, the said discrepancy crept in, however, the same cannot partake of any offence until and unless the mens rea is there. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the clerical mistake cannot said to be an act of commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the provisions contained under Section 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act has been wrongly invoked, particularly, when the applicant at no point of time had intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe in any place within the public view and further there is no question of wrongful occupation of cultivation of the land own or allotted too or notified to be of any competent authority of member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe in that regard. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710.

7. Learned State Law Officer submits that whatever might be the appicant has committed offence and the same stands born out from the allegations contained in the first information report and post submission of the final 4 A482 No. 4241 of 2019 report when the protest petition came to be preferred then the case stood transformed into a complaint case. He submits that offences are made out. L earned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant seek to prefer a discharge application, seeking discharge before the court below taking all legal and factual grounds which are available and permissible under law and a direction be issued to the court below to consider the same in correct perspective.

8. Looking into the overall facts of the case, the application is disposed of directing the applicant to submit a discharge application by 15.11.2025 to take all legal and factual grounds which are advisable and permissible under law and on the said motion, the court below shall decide the discharge application with most expedition strictly in accordance with law.

9. Till the discharge application is decided, no coercive action is being taken against the applicant in pursuance of the Complaint Case No. 15 of 2017, (Munni Lal Vs. Narayan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2015, under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Charkhari, District Mahoba pending in the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mahoba.

10. In the event of default of any of the conditions by the applicant as referred to above, the interim protection shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. October 6, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad