Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Shiv Pratap Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Application under section 482 No. 1211 of 2007
Decided On : 13-02-2018
For the Appellants :K.K. Dwivedi and Dharmendra Singhal, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Govt. Advocate, Ali Hasan, B.N. Singh, Dharmendra Pratap Singh and Dhirendra Singh, Advocates.
Criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes, and summoning of an accused should be based on careful scrutiny of evidence.
Headnote:
Section 482, Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. - [Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, (2003) AIR SC 2612], [Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2010) AIRSCW 405], [Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) AIR SC 128], [Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, (1963) AIR SC 1572] - The court examined the scope and ambit of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and held that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes. It also emphasized that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and should be based on careful scrutiny of evidence. The court further explained the meaning of the expression 'defraud' and highlighted that merely alleging fraudulent acts does not necessarily constitute an offence unless specified under the law.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to quash the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. The dispute arose from the mutation of land and transfer to educational institutions, leading to a civil writ petition and subsequent charge sheet.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was of a civil nature and the criminal court's involvement was an abuse of process. It emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes and that summoning of an accused should be based on careful scrutiny of evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. should be quashed due to the civil nature of the dispute and the abuse of process of court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the examination of the scope and ambit of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the principle that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes, and the careful scrutiny of evidence before summoning an accused.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and quashed the charge sheet and criminal proceedings in Case No. 2082/2006 (State v. Shiv Pratap Singh and others), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, I. P. C., Police Station Dhata, District Fatehpur.
AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard and perused the record.
2. The applicants Shiv Pratap Singh (now dead) and 14 others, through this application moved under Section 482, Cr.P.C. , have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet as well as entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 2082/2006 (State v. Shiv Pratap Singh and others), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Dhata, District Fatehpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khaga, Fatehpur and to stay the further proceedings in the aforesaid case.
3. The brief facts which give rise to the adjudication of the application are that the first information report was lodged by the A.D.G.C. (Revenue), Khaga, Fatehpur who was authorized to lodge first information report by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khaga with the allegation that order of the Naib Tehsildar dated 4.7.2003 was obtained by committing fraud. Out of the 25 plots which was entered in the name of School Farm, 12 plots were sold by Manager of School Farm to Bachchu Ram Singh Ram Swaroop Singh Mahavidhyalay Ayurveda Shiksha Snatak Mahavidhyalay, Adhauli, District Fatehpur. On the basis of sale deed, entry was made which was cancelled by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, against which revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Allahabad which was dismissed. The applicants filed the civil writ petition which was allowed and the case was remanded back to the revenue authority to decide afresh by giving opportunity. The Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation submitted the charge sheet under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, I. P. C.
4. Feeling aggreived, the applicants moved this application before this court.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the Land Management Committee of Village concerned has granted Patta in the name of Junior High School, Adhauli on 18. 9. 1969 by way of proposal of Land Management Committee which was approved by the S. D. M. The area of patta of land of the Gaon Sabha is measuring about 19 bighas. The Junior High School, Adhauli is upgrading as the Adhauli Inter College and within the same campus, Bachchu Ram Singh Ram Swaroop Singh Degree College, Adhauli is also running. Out of that 19 bighas, 13 bighas was transferred in the name of the said degree college. The said land was mutated in the name of the said degree college in the revenue record. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khaga, Fatehpur, without considering the facts as well as verification of the report submitted by the Revenue Authorities, directed the opposite party No. 2 to register the first information report against the applicants.
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the dispute is mainly of civil nature as the civil mis-celleneous writ petition was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court and on the basis of the direction issued in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1671 of 2006 (Bachchu Ram Singh and another v. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Allahabad Division, Allahabad, Sub-Divisional Magistrate was directed to make entry of the said land in name of School Farm. It is also submitted that vide order dated 18. 3. 2017, on the basis of the resolution of the Land Management Committee dated 22. 1. 2017, the said land again mutated in the name of Bachchu Ram Singh Ram Swaroop Singh Mahavidhyalay Ayurveda Shiksha Snatak Mahavidhyalay, Adhauli, District Fatehpur.
6. Per contra, Shri. Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State contends that by hatching conspiracy of Land Management Committee, Lekhpal and other authorities, the applicants got mutated the land of the Gaon Sabha in the name of School Farm or school play ground and opposite party No. 2 was authorized by the S. D. M. to lodge F. I. R. in the proceedings initiated under Section 33/39 Land Revenue Act.
7. The scope and ambit of po
