State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the materials available on record. However, despite service of notice to the Opposite Party No. 2, no one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 to press this application.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2241 of 2013 (State v. Poshaki Lal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 289 of 2013, under Sections 379, 323, 506 of IPC, Police Station Shergarh, District Bareilly.

3. Learned counsel for applicants submits that even if the allegation are taken at their face value, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that the allegation in the First Information Report (FIR) is that applicants have cut down the trees and taken away in the absence of complainant and on making complaint against the aforesaid acts, they have beaten complainant’s wife. It is further submitted that the land in question niether belong to the complainant nor in possession thereof. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature. It is further submitted that the present FIR was lodged as a counter blast case of FIR dated 25.8.2012 under Sections 324, 308, 504 and 323 of IPC, which was lodged by the applicant no. 5-Kailash s/o Ram Autar against Opposite Party no.2, who is complainant in the present case, in which charge sheet had been submitted before the court concerned and complainant-opposite party no.2 was sent to Jail. It is also submitted that the trees, which have been alleged to stolen were situated in Khata No. 328 and owner of Khata No. 328 is Dharamveer 2 A482 No. 31286 of 2013 and Manohar Lal. It is further submitted that Dharamveer and Manohar Lal filed an Original Suit No. 36 of 2019 against Puran Lal and Hansraj seeking relief of permanent injunction against them, in which ex parte decree has been passed in favour of Dharamveer and Manohar Lal on 4.12.2010. It is further submitted that an application has been filed before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly, in which Opposite Party No.2 Pooran Lal, who is complainant in the present case, was forcibly dispossessed from the land of Khata No. 328 on 10.1.2013.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that Smt. Munni wife of Pooran Lal, who is said to have been eye witness of the present case, has not mentioned the date, time and identification of land from where trees is said to have been stolen.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants but did not dispute the factual position of the present case and the complainant is not the owner of land in question.

6. From perusal of the order, it appears that statement of eye witness Smt. Munni Devi, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is the basis of prosecution story, neither disclosed the specific date, time and place of occurrence nor does it identifying the land.

7. On the perusal of the record, it is evident that the land belongs to Dharamveer and the same has been substantiated by order of SDM dated

10.01.2013 and an affidavit with regard to land in question has been filed by Dharamveer. It is further evident that the criminal proceedings is manifestly instituted with an ulterior motive to satisfy feeling of vengeance and to settle the score.

8. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, issue of jurisdiction of this court under 482 Cr.P.C., has been considered and guidelines have been formulated in paragraph no. 102, which is reproduced as under :- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or 3 A482 No. 31286 of 2013 otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (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".

9. From the perusal of record, it appears that neither counter affidavit has been filed nor any medical report is on record to show that what kind of injuries sustained by the wife of opposite party no.2. Thus, the court does not find any merit on claim of injury in the absence of medical report exhibiting the nature of injuries sustained by the wife of the opposite party no.2. The aforesaid discussion shows that the no prima facie case has been made out under Section 323 of IPC.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed.

11. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2241 of 2013 (State v. Poshaki Lal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 289 of 2013, under Sections 379, 323, 506 of IPC, Police Station Shergarh, District Bareilly, is 4 A482 No. 31286 of 2013 set aside. The court concerned is directed to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made herein above. October 7, 2025 Israr (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) ISRAR AHMAD ISRAR AHMAD ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the materials available on record. However, despite service of notice to the Opposite Party No. 2, no one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 to press this application.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2241 of 2013 (State v. Poshaki Lal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 289 of 2013, under Sections 379, 323, 506 of IPC, Police Station Shergarh, District Bareilly.

3. Learned counsel for applicants submits that even if the allegation are taken at their face value, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that the allegation in the First Information Report (FIR) is that applicants have cut down the trees and taken away in the absence of complainant and on making complaint against the aforesaid acts, they have beaten complainant’s wife. It is further submitted that the land in question niether belong to the complainant nor in possession thereof. It is further submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature. It is further submitted that the present FIR was lodged as a counter blast case of FIR dated 25.8.2012 under Sections 324, 308, 504 and 323 of IPC, which was lodged by the applicant no. 5-Kailash s/o Ram Autar against Opposite Party no.2, who is complainant in the present case, in which charge sheet had been submitted before the court concerned and complainant-opposite party no.2 was sent to Jail. It is also submitted that the trees, which have been alleged to stolen were situated in Khata No. 328 and owner of Khata No. 328 is Dharamveer 2 A482 No. 31286 of 2013 and Manohar Lal. It is further submitted that Dharamveer and Manohar Lal filed an Original Suit No. 36 of 2019 against Puran Lal and Hansraj seeking relief of permanent injunction against them, in which ex parte decree has been passed in favour of Dharamveer and Manohar Lal on 4.12.2010. It is further submitted that an application has been filed before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly, in which Opposite Party No.2 Pooran Lal, who is complainant in the present case, was forcibly dispossessed from the land of Khata No. 328 on 10.1.2013.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that Smt. Munni wife of Pooran Lal, who is said to have been eye witness of the present case, has not mentioned the date, time and identification of land from where trees is said to have been stolen.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants but did not dispute the factual position of the present case and the complainant is not the owner of land in question.

6. From perusal of the order, it appears that statement of eye witness Smt. Munni Devi, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is the basis of prosecution story, neither disclosed the specific date, time and place of occurrence nor does it identifying the land.

7. On the perusal of the record, it is evident that the land belongs to Dharamveer and the same has been substantiated by order of SDM dated

10.01.2013 and an affidavit with regard to land in question has been filed by Dharamveer. It is further evident that the criminal proceedings is manifestly instituted with an ulterior motive to satisfy feeling of vengeance and to settle the score.

8. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, issue of jurisdiction of this court under 482 Cr.P.C., has been considered and guidelines have been formulated in paragraph no. 102, which is reproduced as under :- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or 3 A482 No. 31286 of 2013 otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (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".

9. From the perusal of record, it appears that neither counter affidavit has been filed nor any medical report is on record to show that what kind of injuries sustained by the wife of opposite party no.2. Thus, the court does not find any merit on claim of injury in the absence of medical report exhibiting the nature of injuries sustained by the wife of the opposite party no.2. The aforesaid discussion shows that the no prima facie case has been made out under Section 323 of IPC.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present application succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed.

11. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2241 of 2013 (State v. Poshaki Lal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 289 of 2013, under Sections 379, 323, 506 of IPC, Police Station Shergarh, District Bareilly, is 4 A482 No. 31286 of 2013 set aside. The court concerned is directed to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made herein above. October 7, 2025 Israr (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) ISRAR AHMAD ISRAR AHMAD ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad