Friday, October 15, 2021
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Allahabad High Court denies relief to petitioner in land case, refuses to interfere with proceedings pending in local court

Counsel for the applicant said that the entire prosecution story as alleged against the applicant is false and fabricated. No such incident has ever happened.

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition of a person, who sought quashing of the entire proceedings in a land case pending before a local court, the charge sheet filed in the case, as well as the order, which was already passed by the court.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed passed the order on October 6, on an application filed by Anil Kumar Dwivedi under Section 482 of CrPC.

The application prayed to quash the entire proceedings of the case pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Allahabad, filed under Sections 147, 420, 467, 468, 471, 387, 447, 504 and 506 of IPC at Police Station George Town, Prayagraj district. He further sought quashing of the charge sheet filed on January 25 in the case and the impugned order of cognisance, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-2, Allahabad on February 2.

The Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is a freehold plot No 11/1, George Town, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Allahabad whose owner was Ramesh Chandra Pant, son of C.D. Pant. After the death of Ramesh Pant, his legal heir became the owner of the same. The legal heir of Ramesh Pant executed a number of agreements to sell the property to different persons, in which there was a freehold deed also.

He further submitted that in plot no.11/1, the applicant purchased a property measuring total area 201.60 sq mt from the seller namely Deepak Khatri, son of late Pandit Narain Khatri by means of registered sale deed dated February 1, 2014, who had purchased the property from Ramesh Pant by means of registered sale deed dated February 14, 2001.

He also submitted that after purchasing the plot or the Bungalow, located at C.V. Chintamani Road, George Town, District Prayagraj, the applicant constructed house thereon after the map sanctioned from the Prayagraj Development Authority.

The Counsel for the applicant said that the entire prosecution story, as alleged against the applicant, is false and fabricated. No such incident has ever happened.

He further said that the applicant is the owner and is in possession of a plot measuring area of 201.60 sq mt in Bungalow, C.V. Chintamani Road, George Town, District Prayagraj.

The applicant is in possession over the said property from the date of his sale deed, which is February 1, 2014.

The Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the allegation in the FIR dated September 30, 2020 that the applicant has encroached the land of the respondents and threatened her for dire consequences was false and made with ulterior motive and malafide intention. No such thing has happened as alleged by the prosecution.

Imran Ullah, Counsel for the respondents, filed a counter affidavit and submitted that the respondents have entered into an agreement of sale with the original landlord of the said property on October 20, 2008 in respect of an area measuring about 487.5 sq yard of the said Bungalow and had paid the amount to the landlord. Thereafter, the possession was handed over to the respondents. Thereafter on August 24, 2015, the sale deed of the said property was executed in favour of respondents.

It was further argued by the Counsel for the respondents that the applicant was trying to encroach the property of the respondents by opening the window, door and Barja in the land of respondents, which is illegal and against the norms.

He further submitted that the applicant has moved an application for sanction of the map before the Prayagraj Development Authority which was sanctioned and in that map there is no whisper of door, window, Barja and 10 ft. Rasta in the adjoining land of the plot of the applicant and also on the land of respondents.

Thereafter, a complaint was made before the Prayagraj Development Authority in respect of the encroachment made by the applicant and for making construction against the sanctioned map.

In this regard, a notice under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 was issued against the applicant for demolition of the said unauthorized construction which was made in the portion of respondents. The applicant thereafter filed a reply and approached the authority concerned for compounding. The matter is still pending consideration before the authority concerned for final adjudication.

Imran Ullah, Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant with malafide intention and ulterior motive and with the intention to grab the property of respondents, when he did not succeed in his ill motive, filed civil suit bearing Civil Suit the original landlord of the said property and the respondents as defendants in the said suit, in which no injunction was granted to the applicant. There is no order of the court below appended with the application filed by the applicant before the Court granting any injunction order.

The Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 482 CrPC and to verify the disputed questions of fact as the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that where prima facie offence is made out as per the prosecution case, the Court cannot interfere in the disputed questions of fact for quashing the charge sheet, cognisance order and the proceedings of the case.

The Additional Government Advocate supported the contention raised by the Counsel for the respondents. He submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR, charge sheet and cognisance order prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. The Investigating Officer after due verification and enquiry has submitted the charge sheet against the applicant and the Magistrate has also taken cognisance in accordance with law. The innocence of the applicant cannot be judged at the pre-trial stage. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence and the application filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed, he added.

“After considering the arguments as advanced by the Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, the Court finds that the entire argument raised by the Counsel for the applicant relates to disputed questions of fact and the Court cannot interfere in the same. From the allegations made in the FIR, charge sheet and cognisance order prima facie offence is made out against the applicant,” the Court observed.

“The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the threshold of quashing of the criminal proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result, the prayer for quashing the impugned cognisance order, charge sheet and the entire proceedings of the case is refused. There is no merit in this application filed by the applicant under Section 482 CrPC,” it added.

The Bench said it cannot go into the disputed questions of fact once the prima facie offence is made out and in the case, as per the allegation, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. No case is made out by the applicant for interference by the Court exercising power under Section 482 CrPC for the relief claimed, it added.

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

News Update

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.