Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.
Chavi Lal and Others –Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 2180 of 2018
Decided On : 05-03-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 and 482 - Petitioners against Order – Order has been rejected without application of judicious mind - Revenue record i.e. Khatauni was inspected by first informant of Village Panchayat Bechuwa and it was found that Khata acre was recorded in the name of Awadh son of Mohan in 1395 to 1400 Fasli but the said land was fraudulently, intentionally and illegally was recorded/mutated in the name of Smt. Belwa D/o Awadh, wife of Chhavi Ram as legal heirs by Naib Tehsildar Druv Nath Pandey and also mentioned the fake caste in column 13 Khata No. 482/4.062 acre was also mutated in name of Smt. Pushpa Devi alias Prema Devi showing daughter of Ram Pheran S/o Jamuna Prasad also interring fake caste in Column 13 - Investigating Officer investigated matter and recorded statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners and also other co-accused persons – whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gave rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under section 227 Cr.P.C -(Para 14).
Finding of the Court:
What is required from the court is to sift and weigh the materials for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case for framing a charge against the accused has been made out. Even in a case of grave or strong suspicion charge can be framed. The court has to consider broad probabilities of the case, total effect of the evidence and the documents produced including basic infirmities, if any. If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, but the court should not weigh the evidence as if it were holding trial. Accused can be discharged only when the charge is groundless.
Result: Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner have sought following reliefs :-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside impugned order dated 08.02.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shravasti whereby revision of the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 19.12.207 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Shravasti has been rejected without application of judicious mind."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The revenue record i.e. Khatauni was inspected by Tehsildar Bhinga (first informant) of Village Panchayat Bechuwa and it was found that Khata No. 313/4.381 acre was recorded in the name of Awadh son of Mohan in 1395 to 1400 Fasli but the said land was fraudulently, intentionally and illegally was recorded/mutated in the name of Smt. Belwa D/o Awadh, wife of Chhavi Ram as legal heirs by Naib Tehsildar Druv Nath Pandey on 28.12.1989 and also mentioned the fake caste in column 13. Likewise Khata No. 482/4.062 acre was also mutated in the name of Smt. Pushpa Devi alias Prema Devi showing the daughter of Ram Pheran S/o Jamuna Prasad also interring the fake caste in Column 13. It was further narrated that the Investigating Officer investigated the matter and recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners and also other co-accused persons on 31.08.1992 and 26.12.1992 in Case No. 2724 of 2002 (State Vs. Chhavi Lal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 138 of 1992, under Sections 167, 218, 466, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Bhinga District Shravasti. Thereafter the petitioners appeared before the court concerned and bail was granted to them.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the trial court as well as revisional court without application of judicious mind rejected the discharge application of the petitioner. Further submission is that no disclosed offence is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application for discharge on 6.11.2016 stating therein that no such material evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the petitioners on which very basis no offence is made out and main author of the crime is co-accused Naib Tehsildar Dhruv Nath who made entry in the revenue record without calling the report from Lekhpal of concerned village and the petitioners have not given any application or evidence before him for mutating their names under the proceedings of Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act.
5. Further submission is that since there is no cogent and reliable evidence against the petitioners, so the petitioners filed discharge application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shravasti by means of order dated 19.12.2017. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shravasti rejected the discharge application without considering the aspect of the matter that the petitioner never moved any application for name of the petitioners to be recorded in the revenue record before the Naib Tehsildar but the learned trial court wrongly rejected the discharge application of the petitioners. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners also filed revision before the Sessions Court, Shravasti bearing Criminal Revision No. NIL of 2018 (Chhavi Lal V. State) but learned Sessions Court also rejected the revision of the petitioners without considering the material aspect available on record and dismissed the revision vide order dated 08.02.2018. It is further submitted that the main accused i.e. Dhruv Nath Pandey, who is the main author of this crime has not been arrested and he is also not attending the court in the garb of order dated 25.09.1992 passed in Writ Petition No. 6788 (SB) of 1992 while the said petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution vide orde
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
