AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Milind Ramesh Phadke, J
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of First Information Report registered at Crime No. 305/2024 registered at Police Station Gohad Chauraha, District Gwalior (M.P.).
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant submitted an application stating that he, along with his father, mother, and brother, owns agricultural land known locally as Narshari and Bandha. On the night of 30.10.2024, the mustard crop standing on this land was illegally ploughed and destroyed by the accused persons, namely: Sudharam, Kaliyan, sons of Ramgopal Singh, caste Baghel, residents of Biswari, Bhanu, son of Ramswaroop Singh, caste Baghel, resident of Biswari, and Vijay, son of Sudharam Singh, caste Baghel, resident of Biswari, who allegedly entered the complainant’s field with two tractors and ploughed the land. The complainant claimed that this act caused him a loss of about Rs. 3,00,000/-and that the accused persons committed this act in a bullying and threatening manner. During investigation, the statements of the complainant, his father, mother, brother, and an independent witness, Chowkidar Ramautar Baghel, were recorded. Their statements confirmed that the mustard crop had been sown on the disputed land and that it was destroyed at night by the tractors driven by the accused persons. A report regarding the crop damage was obtained from the Tehsildar, Gohad, along with the Panchnama prepared by the Halka Patwari. In his report, the Patwari confirmed that the land bearing survey numbers 606, 637, 424/5/1 and 424/5/2 belongs to the complainant and his family members. Survey Nos. 606 and 637 are in the names of the complainant’s mother and brother; Survey No. 424/5/1 is in the name of the father; and Survey No. 424/5/2 is in the name of the complainant himself. The Patwari reported that on all these survey numbers, mustard crop had been sown by the complainant and that the entire standing crop had been ploughed and destroyed by the accused persons using tractors. Further assessment was conducted by the Deputy Director, Farmers Welfare and Agriculture Development Department, District Bhind, who estimated the loss to the mustard crop at Rs. 71,400/-. Based on the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, the report of the Tehsildar and Patwari, the crop-loss assessment, and other evidence collected during the investigation, the police concluded that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Accordingly, offences under Sections 329(3), 324(4), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and subsequently Sections 3, 181, 146 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, were registered at Police Station Gohad Chauraha, District Bhind (M.P.).
Learned counsel submits that the FIR has been falsely registered only to harass the petitioners. The entire prosecution story is cooked up, and the petitioners have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged incident. It has been argued that the petitioners are simple farmers and are completely unrelated to the alleged acts described in the FIR. Their implication is purely malicious and without any supporting material. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR relates to a piece of land over which a long-standing civil dispute exists between the complainant's family and the petitioners’ family. The complainant, with an ulterior motive, has misused the criminal process and lodged a false FIR only to pressurize the petitioners in the ongoing civil dispute. It is submitted that the complainant fraudulently obtained the land on lease despite the fact that the petitioners’ family has been in possession for many years. An appeal in this regard has already been filed by the brother of petitioner No. 4, and a stay order has been granted in favour of the petitioners by the competent authority. Therefore, the criminal proceedings are nothing but a counterblast to the civil matter. It has been argued that even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value, they do not make out any of the essential ingredients required for the offences mentioned. It has been argued that the petitioner No. 5 has been made an accused only because the tractor allegedly used in the incident is registered in his name. There is no allegation that he was present or involved in any act on the date of the incident. His implication clearly shows mala fide intention on the part of the complainant. The FIR has been filed solely to harass the petitioners and to settle personal scores arising out of the land dispute. The continuation of such criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel further submitted that the dispute relates to possession, title, and cultivation over agricultural land issues which are essentially civil. Giving a criminal colour to such a civil dispute is impermissible. Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool for pressure tactics. The FIR has been lodged after a considerable delay and only after the civil dispute progressed, showing that it is motivated and filed with mala fide intention. It is argued that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would cause miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down categories of cases where FIRs liable to be quashed. The present matter falls squarely within those guidelines as the dispute is civil in nature, allegations are absurd and improbable, and the criminal case is initiated with mala fide intention, and therefore, learned counsel prays that the impugned FIR and all consequential criminal proceedings be quashed, as their continuation would result in abuse of the process of law and cause undue harassment to the petitioners.
Per contra learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the present petition filed by the petitioners under Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC is misconceived and does not make out any ground for quashing of the FIR. The allegations in the FIR clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The FIR contains specific, detailed and direct allegations against the petitioners, stating that they entered the complainant’s agricultural land with tractors and deliberately ploughed and destroyed the mustard crop. The said allegations are not vague, general, or improbable so as to warrant interference at the threshold. During investigation, the statements of the complainant and multiple witnesses, including independent witness Ramautar Baghel (Chowkidar), have been recorded, and all of them have supported the version of the complainant. Their statements consistently confirm that the petitioners were involved in destroying the mustard crop standing on the complainant’s land. Further, a crop-loss assessment was carried out by the Deputy Director, Farmers Welfare & Agriculture Development Department, who assessed the loss to be around Rs. 71,400/-. This independent assessment supports the allegation that substantial damage was caused to the complainant’s standing crop. It is submitted that whether the petitioners are agriculturists, whether there is a civil dispute between the parties, or whether the complainant has allegedly acted with malafide intentions, are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. These issues require trial and evidence, and cannot form the basis for quashing a duly registered FIR. Merely because a civil dispute may also be pending between the parties does not by itself mean that no criminal offence has been committed. The petitioners' plea of false implication and innocence is a matter of defence, which cannot be examined in the proceedings under section 528 of BNSS and therefore prays for rejection of the petition filed by the petitioners.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the FIR it is clear that the FIR in the present case contains specific and direct allegations that the petitioners entered the complainant’s agricultural land on the night of 30.10.2024 with two tractors and deliberately ploughed and destroyed the standing mustard crop. During investigation, the statements of the complainant, his family members, and an independent witness Chowkidar Ramautar Baghel have been recorded, and all of them have consistently supported the prosecution version and stated that the petitioners were responsible for the destruction of the crop. A detailed report from the Tehsildar and Halka Patwari confirms the survey numbers of the land belonging to the complainant’s family and records that mustard crop had indeed been sown over these fields. The Panchnama prepared by the Patwari shows that the crop was uprooted and destroyed. Further, an independent assessment by the Deputy Director, Farmers Welfare & Agriculture Development Department has estimated the loss to the complainant at Rs. 71,400/-. These materials clearly support the allegations made in the FIR. The principal defence put forward by the petitioners is that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature due to an ongoing land dispute, and that the complainant has acted out of malice is a matter of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in a petition seeking quashing of the FIR. The existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings if the allegations disclose a cognizable offence. Similarly, the petitioners’ claim of innocence and alleged false implication can only be examined during trial and not at the stage of FIR quashing.
This Court finds that the allegations in the FIR, when taken at face value, clearly make out a prima facie case under the relevant provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The investigation has already collected adequate material supporting the prosecution case. None of the well-settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) apply to the facts of the present matter so as to warrant interference at the initial stage. This is not a case where the allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or do not disclose any offence.
In view of the above discussion and material available on record, no case is made out for exercising powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing FIR No. 305/2024 or for interfering with the ongoing investigation.
Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioners stands dismissed.