IMPORTANT POINT
A Magistrate must apply judicial mind when taking cognizance of an offence; failure to do so, especially through mechanical processes, renders the order invalid and subject to quashing.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.

1. Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the applicants; Sri Moti Lal, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party.

2. By means of the present Application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the Applicant has prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 14.05.2022, the cognizance/summoning order dated 25.07.2022 and proceeding bearing Case No.4647 of 2023 (State versus Roshan and others) arising out of Case Crime No.81 of 2022 under Section 434 & 506 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Didarganj, District-Azamgarh pending before the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Judicial Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Court No.23, Azamgarh.

3. The relevant facts of the case in nutshell, which are required to be mentioned are that the opposite party No. 2 namely Smt. Vidyawati Devi lodged a First Information Report on 07.04.2022 against six persons namely Roshan (present applicant), Ratanlal, Madanlal, Hariram, Shri Chand and Janardan for the alleged offence under Section 434 and 506 Indian Penal Code, stating therein that she is the resident of Village Bangaon, Pargana Mahul, Tehsil Martinganj, District Azamgarh and is the owner of the plots No.288/0.44 and 287/0.44, Village Makdoompur. It has been further narrated in the F.I.R. that in pursuance of the demarcation made under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the proceeding of ‘Patthargadi’ was carried out. Categorical allegation against the above named six persons are that they dismantled the ‘boundary marks’ fixed under the aforesaid demarcation proceeding and have illegally removed the same by force. The informant/complainant also made allegation of serious threats to her life, from the persons named in the said FIR.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the Applicant is that the dispute between the applicant and the opposite party no.2 is purely of civil nature and cognizable by the competent court/authority prescribed under the relevant provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further submits that the opposite party No. 2, without impleading them in the case filed by her under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in respect of Gata No.288 and 287 situated in Village Makdoompur, obtained an Order on 16.11.2018, at the back of the present applicants, from the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Martinganj, District Azamgarh. It has been further submitted that on coming to know about said Order dated 16.11.2018, the applicants being the co-sharer in the said property moved an application for recall of the same on 05.12.2018 in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Martinganj, District Azamgarh.

5. The assertion of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of the opposite party no.2 are nothing but a sheer harassment against the Applicants, just to create undue pressure on them. Learned counsel for the applicant has also raised questions on the fairness of the investigation and also to the legality of the charge-sheet dated 14.05.2022. He contends that the Investigating Officer without verifying the correctness of the allegations, the documentary evidence and the nature of dispute between the parties, submitted the charge-sheet, which is bad in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has very critically dealt with the aforesaid controversy in the case of Indian Oil Corporation versus NEPC India Limited reported in 2006 (6) SCC 736, wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has taken serious note of the growing tendency of converting civil dispute into criminal cases. Further, putting a node of caution in case of Professor R.K. Vijayasarathy and another versus Sudha Seetharam and another reported in 2019 (16) SCC 739, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to hold that cloaking a civil dispute with a criminal nature without ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence is abuse of process of court, therefore th