The judgment establishes the legal principle that the power to quash criminal proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 should be exercised with great circumspection and only in rare cases where the allegations and evidence do not prima facie constitute an offence against the accused.

AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State. Despite sufficient service, opposite party no. 2 did not turn up but learned AGA has filed counter affidavit.

2. The applicants, Mahabir Tyagi and three others, through this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 25.5.2004 in Criminal Case No. 200/9 of 2004 (State v. Raju Tyagi and others) under sections 147, 323, 506, 427, 342 IPC and 3(1)10 SC/ST Act, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut and further prayed to stay the aforesaid proceeding.

3. Brief facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this application are that the First Information Report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 26.3.2004 with the allegation that applicants along-with 42 to 50 unknown persons have demolished the house of which he was the tenant. They had damaged the furniture's and looted the household articles and by doing indecent behaviour, they also beaten him and his family members. The case was registered as Case Crime No. 103 of 2004 under sections 395, 427, 385 IPC and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act. The Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation submitted charge sheet under sections 147, 323, 506, 427, 342 IPC and 3(1)10 SC/ST Act. Thereafter learned Magistrate took the cognizance.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants moved this application before this Court.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that neither the applicants caused any injury to anybody nor anybody sustained any injury. No offence is committed by the applicants. The Investigation Officer has collected so may evidence and from bare perusal of this evidence, which was collected by the Investigation Officer, it is clear that there are not sufficient evidence submitted for charge sheet against the applicants but the I.O. has illegally submitted the charge sheet against the applicants. The opposite party no. 2 has no right over the building in dispute but his father Raj Kumar was claiming himself as a tenant in the aforesaid building. Several notices were issued but he claimed before any authority concerned himself as a tenant. It is submitted that the applicants have simply complied the order passed by SDM Sardhana under section 133 Cr.P.C., 1973 and notice given by Nagar Palika Parishad, Sardhana Meerut under section 243 of U.P. Nagar Palika Act and the applicants were bound to comply the same. It is further submitted that according to the sections 76 and 78 of Indian Penal code it is not offence if any act has done in compliance of the order passed by the court. It is submitted that Investigation Officer has recorded several independent witnesses who did not support prosecution version but without considering their statements Investigation Officer has submitted the charge sheet even the I.O. has not mentioned their names in list of witnesses. On this ground, the charge sheet is defective and likely to be quashed. It is submitted that the I.O has visited the Nagar Palika Parishad Sardhana, Meerut and he found that the house has been demolished in compliance of the order of the competent authority and he mentioned this fact in case diary (G.D.) but without consideration this fact submitted the charge sheet. It is submitted that I.O. himself recorded his conclusions that some allegations have been found false and building has been demolished in compliance of the order of competent authority even he submitted the charge sheet. It is submitted that from perusal of the evidence collected by Investigation Officer during investigation no prima facie case is made out against applicants. Further submission is that no offence under section 3(1)10 SC/ST Act is also made out against applicants. There is neither any allegation in FIR nor in the statement of any witnesses that applicants used any word or did any act at public pl