Ram Suhawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Ors

Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 28170 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Suhawan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Nripendra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the records.

¶2By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought following main relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI to quash the impugned orders dated 25.07.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Bahraich in Crl. Revision No. 114 of 2015 (Ram Suhawan Versus Mukta Prasad & other) and the order dated 21.04.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Complaint Case No. 3562 of 2014 (Ram Suhawan Versus Mukta Prasad and another) relating to P.S. Ikona, District -Bahraich, Annexure NO.182. to the writ petition."

¶3Brief facts of the case are to the effect that:

(i) According to application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and FIR, subsequently registered as Complaint Case No. 3562 of 2014, one Smt. Shyama Dei, who was issue-less, provided half of her agricultural land, indicated herein-under, to Jag Prasad (father of the petitioner) and Shanti Prasad (respondent no. 3) and half of the land was provided to Mukta Prasad (respondent no. 2) and Vidya Prasad and she also provided the possession of the land accordingly. "Gata No(s). 171/0.200 acre, 101/0.040 acre, 235/0.040 acre, 238/0.400 acre and 300/11.062 acres."

(ii) To establish the aforesaid fact, some documents ought to have been filed such as 'Sale Deed', 'Gift Deed', 'Will', etc. but no document was filed nor has been filed before this Court.

(iii) According to case set up by the petitioner, the Mukta Prasad (respondent no. 2) and Shanti Prasad (respondent no. 3) got executed a sale deed in their favour by Smt. Shyama Dei on 14.12.1970 and thereafter, on coming to know about the sale deed dated 14.12.1970, an objection was filed before the Consolidation Officer.

(iv) It would be apt to indicate that in compliance of order of Magistrate the FIR was lodged and thereafter, the Investigating Officer, upon completion of investigation, submitted the final report. Against the final report the protest petition was filed by the petitioner, which was registered as complain case in terms of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the statement(s) of the petitioner and his witnesses namely Rama Shankar (P.W.1) and Swami Nath (P.W.2) were recorded in terms of Section(s) 200 and 202 Cr.P.C..

¶4The Magistrate after considering material on record dismissed the complaint case in exercise of power under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order impugned dated 21.04.2015. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: "

ममननतलबनककबबनददपरपररववदनककबवदवनअधधवकवककबहसककसदनवतथवपतववलन

कवअवलककनबकयव।

पररववदनकवयहसवनककततथयहमबकशनमतनशयवमदकईबनससतवनथनतथवआरवजनगवटव सस०१७१, 101,२३५,

२३८व३००ससथतगवमसरकवहन,

परगनवइककनव,

तहसनलव

धजलवबहरवइचउनककसमपधतथनआवकदकनकउकशनमतनशयवमदकईदवरवउपरकक

आरवजनपररववदनबपतवतथवबवपकनगणसबहतबवदवपसवदकक१/२, १/

२भवगदकनककव

अबभकथनबकयवहम।शनमतनशयवमदकईआवकदकककररशतकदवरनममकयवलगतनथनइसकव

उलकखआवकदनपतममनहहबकयवगयवहम।तथवयहभनसपषनहनबकयवगयवहमबकशनमतन

शयवमदकईनकआवकदकककबपतववबवपकनगणसबहतबवदवपसवदककअपननसमपधतकक बमनवमव, बहबवनवमव, वरवसत,

दवनइतयवबदबकसपकवरसकबदयवथवबवधधममममसकउपरकक

तरनककहनसमपधतअसतरणहकतदबवदमवनहह।आवकदकवदवरवमवतयहकहदकनकबकशनमतन

शयवमदकईनकपशनगतसमपधतउसककबपतवतथवबवदवपसवदककदकबदयवबवशवसननयनहन

हम।दवधखलइसतखवबककछवयवपबतककअनदसवरशनमतनशयवमदकईककमकतयदककपशचवत

बवपकनगणकवनवमबमनवममककआधवरपरदजरबकएजवनककवउलकखहम।यबदउकवरवसतकक

बवषयममआवकदकककएतरवजहमतबउसकचवबहएबकवहसकमरवजसवनयवयवलयमम

वरवसतआदकशककचदनकतनदकतवतथवअपनकवदवरवधलयकगयककथनबकशनमतनशयवमदकईनक

अपननआरवजनउसककबपतवतथवबवपकनगणसबहतबवदवपसवदककदकबदयवथवककआधवर

परअपनवनवमशनमतनशयवमदकईककमकतयकपरवनतवरवसतनदजरकरवयक।

धवरव२००दस०प०सस०ककबयवनममरवमसदहववननकपदननयहनकहवहमबकशनमतनशयवमदकई

नकआरवजनगवटवसस०१७१, १८१, २३५, २३८,

व३००अपनकजनवनकवलमममकरकबपतव

वबवपकनशवनतनपसवद,

मदकवपसवदतथवबवदवपसवदकक१/२, १/

२भवगदकबदयव

आरवजनबकसकबकसपकवरअसतररतहहयनइसकवसपषउलकखनहनबकयवगयवहम।आरवजन

ककबषयकगयहमयबदववसतवममशनमतनशयवमदकईनकअपनकजनवनकवलममउकआरवजन

पररववदनबपतवबवपकनगणसबहतबवदवपसवदककदकबदयवथवतकआवकदकककबपतवकक

चवबहएथवबकवकपशनगतआरवजनककसमबनधममधवरव२२९बनउ०प०धजमनदवरनबवनवश

एवसभभबमसदधवरअधधबनयमअनतगरतसवतवउदघकषणवकवववदसकमनयवयवलयममपसतदत

करतक।पन०डबलभ०१रवमशसकरनकधवरव२०२दस०प०सस०ककबयवनममभनयहसपषनहन

बकयवहमबकशनमतनशयवमदकईनकआवकदकककबपतववबवदवपसवदककअपननआरवजनकमसक

दनथन।पन०डबलभ०२सववमननवथनकअपनकसशपथबयवनममकहवहमबकशनमतनशयवमदकई

ककककईससतवननहहथनउनहकनकअपनकजनवनकवलममअपननआरवजनजगपसवद, मदकव पसवद,

शवनतनपसवदतथवबवदवपसवदककमकधखकरपसकदकबदयवथव।बवधधतनसमपधत

कवमकधखकअसतरणबवधधमवनयनहनहम।उकककअलवववपन०डबलभ०२सववमननवथनकधवरव

२०२दस०प०सस०अनतगरतअपनवबयवनबदनवसक२०.११.

१४ककबदयवथवबयवनमम

अपननउम४७वषरबतवयवहमआवकदकनकशनमतनशयवमदकईवदवरववषर१९६८ममजमनन

दकनवकहवहमजबबकववसतवममवषर१९६८ककआसपवसइसगववहकवजनमहहआहकगव।

अतएववषर१९६८अथवव७०ककआसपवसककघटनवओसककसमबनधममपन०डबलभ०२

सववमननवथककजवनकवरनहकनकककआशवनहनजवसकतनहम।

उपरककबववकचनवकक पशचवतनयवयवलयकवमतहमबकअबभयदकगणवदवरवबकसन

आपरवधधकघटनवकवकवररतबकयवजवनवपथमदषयवपकटनहहहम।सवकयककअभववमम

धवरव२०३दस०प०सस०पररववदखवररजहकनकयकगयहम।"

¶5Being aggrieved, the order dated 21.04.2015 was assailed by filing Criminal Revision No. 114 of 2014. The revisional Court, vide order dated 25.07.2018 dismissed the revision and affirmed the order dated

21.04.2015, which is also in issue. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: "७)

इसबनगरवनननयवयवलयककयहदकखनवहमबककयवबवदवनअधननसथनयवयवलयदवरव

पवररतआदकशबदनवसबकत२१-०४-

१५ककपवररतकरनकममककईबवधधककभभलककहम

अथववनहह।इससमबनधममयहउलकखननयहमबकबकसनवयबकककबकसनअपरवधककधलए

आहहतबकयकजवनकककसमबनधमममधजसटटकटककपररववदपत,

धवरव२००दणडपबकयव

ससबहतववधवरव२०२दणडपबकयवससबहतवममबकयकगयकअबभकथननककदबषगतरखतकहहए

ककवलयहदकखनवहकतवहमबककयवअबभयदकगणककबवरदबकसनअपरवधककसमबनधमम

अबगमकवयरववहनबकयकजवनककवपयवरपआधवरमकजभदहमअथववनहहऔरऐसवकरतकसमय

मधजसटटकटककधलएयहआवशयकनहहहमबकवहउनकवरणनकक,

लकखबदकरक, धजनकक

आधवरपरऐसवमतपकटबकयवजवनवहम।बसलकअबभयदकगणककबवरदपररववदपतमम

बकयकगयकअबभकथननककसमबनधममउपकमजवरनबकयकजवनकककसमबनधममयहदकखनव

हकतवहमबककयवअबभयदकगणककबवरदपथमदषयवमवमलवबनतवहमअथववनहहऔर

पथमदषयवमवमलककवबनधवरणपररववदपतममबकयकगयकअबभकथननवपररववदनककबयवन

धवरव२००दणडपबकयवससबहतववजवजचधवरव२०२दणडपबकयवससबहतवककअनतगरत

बकयकयकबयवननककसभकमबवशलकषणबकयकजवनकककआवशयकतवनहहहकतनहम।इसपररपकय

ममयबदपतववलनपरउपलबधसवमगनकवपररशनलनबकयवजवयकतबयहसपषहकतवहमबक

पररववदवबयवनअनतगरतधवरव२००व२०२दणडपबकयवससबहतवममबकयकगयककथनन

सकयहसपषहकतवहमबकपररववदनबवववबदतभभबमककसमबनधममअपनव१/

२भवगहकनककव

कथनकररहवहम।परनतदयह१/

२भवगभभबमउसकबकसपकवरयवबकसअबभलकखकक

आधवरपरपवपहहईइसकवककईउलकखनहहबकयवहम।जबबकबवपकनगणककपकममबमनवमव

बवदमवनहमऔरबमनवमवककआधवरपरहनपतयथरगणकवनवमरवजसवअबभलकखनममभन

असबकतबकयवगयवहम।ऐसनदशवममयबदपररववदन,

उसककसवथधकखवबदयकजवनककवकथन

करतवहमतबयहउसनपरबनभरपरहमबकवहउनसमसततथयनककबवदवनमधजसटटकटकक

समकरखतव,

परनतदउसनकइसपकवरकवककईकथननहहबकयवहमबकउसककसवथफवड

कमसकबकयवगयवहम।चभजबकबमनवमवपतयथरगणककपकममबवदमवनहम।पररववदनककककवलउस

बमनवममककबनरसतनकरणकवअधधकवरपवपथवऔरवहसमसततथयनककधसबवल

नयवयवलयककसवमनकरखकरउसबमनवममककबनरसतकरवसकतवथव।जबबकपररववदनदवरव

ऐसवनहहबकयवगयव।इससमबनधममबवदवनअधननसथनयवयवलयनकअपनकआदकशबदनवसक २१-०४-

२०१५ममजकबनषकषरबदयवहमवहपभणर पसकबवधधसममतहम।उसममबकसन

पकवरककबवधधकतदबटनहहहम।इसककअबतररकजहवजतकपररववदननकबदनवसक१६-०३-

१०ककघटनवककसमबनधममजककथनबनगरवननममबकयकगयकहम,

कवसमबनधहम,

तबयह

सवधवरणपककबतकवसमबनधहम,

पभणर पसकअसववभवबवकहमऔरइसआधवरपर

पतयथरगणककभवरतनयदणडससबहतवककधवरव५०४,

५०६ककअनतगरतभनआहहतनहह

बकयवजवसकतव।कयनबकपररववदननकउनशबदववलनकवउलकखनहहबकयवहमधजसकक

ससबसधममगवलनगलकजबकयकजवनककवकथनबकयवगयवहम।यहबनगरवनननयवयवलयमवमलक

ककतथयनएवसपररससथबतयनवअबभलकखककआधवरपरइसबनषकषरपरपहहजचतवहमबक

बवदवनमदखयनयवबयकमधजसटटकटदवरवआदकशबदनवसक२१-०४-

२०१५पवररतकरनकमम

ककईबवधधककतदबटनहहककहम।बनगरवननबनरसतबकयकजवनकयकगयहम।"

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the present petition stated that in dismissing the complaint, the Magistrate committed the error on fact and law both as he failed to take note of facts of the case in its true spirit including the essential ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC.

¶7Learned AGA for the State opposed the petition and stated that from a bare perusal of the story indicated in the FIR in which after investigation, the protest petition was filed and subsequently the case was treated as complaint case would indicate that the petitioner is trying to give criminal color to a civil dispute.

¶8Considering the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the compliant as also by the recitals in the impugned order(s) passed by the Magistrate and Revisional Court, respectively, under consideration, as also the ingredients to attract the offence under Section(s) 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC as also the in the judgments in the case of Usha Chakraborty and another Versus State of West Bengal and another; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, Naresh Kumar and another Versus State of Karnataka and another; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 268 according to which converting a civil dispute to criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue, this Court finds that the order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the Magistrate affirmed vide order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Revisional Court are just and proper and no interference in the same is required by this Court.

¶9Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Cost made easy.

¶10Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 19.12.2024 Mohit Singh/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench