The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court must evaluate the evidence and statements to determine the prima facie case under the relevant sections of the IPC, and the theory of counterblast cannot be allowed to be pleaded in a case involving allegations of physical assault, threats, and property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Daya Shanker, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No. 254 of 2013 (Leelawati vs. Jai Prakash) under sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station Kerakat, District Jaunpur pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Jaunpur including the summoning order dated 28.10.2013 and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.

3. To understand the dispute better it would be appropriate to refer here the facts in brief of the case which are as follows. The opposite party no. 2 who is wife of the accused applicant no. 2 made a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Jaunpur stating therein that 2 daughters were born out of their wedlock but no son which led to the annoyance to her husband, who kept Shakuntala daughter of Basantu/Applicant no. 3 with him and was issuing threats to the opposite party no. 2 that he would not give his property to the opposite party no. 2 and her 2 daughters namely Mamta and Babita rather the same would be written in favour of Shakuntala and regarding this the Opposite Party no. 2 has filed a suit no. 1219 of 2011, Lilawati vs Somaru. Getting annoyed due to this, the applicant no. 1 Jai Prakash Rai alias Kailash Nath, who is a man of gunda character and is involved in an offence under sections 302 IPC and is notorious for spreading terror at his instance Somaru and Shakuntala after getting bulldozer called, razed to the ground the kachcha house of the opposite party no. 2 and had stolen away her household goods. When the opposite party no. 2 resisted, all the above named three accused abused her badly and threatened opposite party no. 2 and her daughters to run away failing which they would also be done to death by using bulldozer and saying all this the opposite party no. 2 was beaten badly and when her daughter reached there to save, they were also beaten. Hearing the commotion Habibullah and various other persons of the village also reached there who intervened and witnessed the occurrence. The accused then left the place gaving threats uttering “madarchod agar koi karyavahi karegi to jan se mar kar khatm kar denge". Saving her life from the terrorism of the accused the opposite party no. 2 came to the police station Kerakat to lodge a written report which was given there, but the police did not register the same nor was she sent for medical examination nor police went to the spot and feeling frustrated the opposite party no. 2 sent a registered complaint to the Superintendent Police but when no action was taken by them, she presented the complaint dated 29/09/2013 before the court to summon the accused and punish them. The statement of the opposite party no. 2 was recorded under sections 200 Cr. P.C. in which she has stated that her entire house was demolished by the applicant nos 1 to 3. Both her daughters had been married. Her husband had kept daughter of Basantu. Her husband consumes liquor and abuses. He has written agricultural land in the name of applicant no. 3/Shakuntala. Both the daughters Mamta and Babita live with her while Shakuntala is wife of Ram Khelawan. All the three accused would get opposite party no. 2 and her daughters killed and had abused all of them regarding which a complaint was made at the police station but no action was taken. There is one bigha of land in the name of her husband, out of which half used to be sown by her while the other half by Shakuntala. As on date, the said land was being cultivated by the accused while she herself was meeting her expenditure by doing labourer's work. The entire land is in the name of her husband. The two daughters namely, Mamta and Babita