Dr. Atul Krishna vs State of U.P. and Raja Ram Bharti

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri Naveen Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P..

This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the chargesheet of case crime No. 611 of 2007 u/s 447, 506 IPC and Section 198 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, P.S. T.P. Nagar, District Meerut.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that applicant is qualified doctor and is President of Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust, Meerut which is running medical and Dental college at Meerut, ''No Objection Certificate'' to establish the medical college and Dental college by the Government of U.P. was granted on 13.3.1996 as per requirement of Medical Council of India. The trust has purchased 30 acres of land, its khasra No. was 1656/2 (iii) village Maliyana, it was belonging to one Mohana son of Jhandu, R/o village Maliyana, who was belonging to scheduled caste, the land was allotted to him in the year 1978 and he was declared Sankramaniya Bhumidhar in February 1998. He was empowered to sell the land after obtaining permission from the District Magistrate/ District Collector. It was informed by Mohana to the applicant that he had already agreed to sell the land to Mukesh Kumar and the possession has been given to him and power of attorney was in favour of Rakesh Dutt Sharma the Mr. Mohana was apprised by the applicant that full payment was made to him and possession of the land was handed by Mukesh Kumar Sharma. Thereafter the applicant approached Mukesh Kumar Sharma and reached to an agreement that he would construct some rooms on the said plot and land will be given to him on rent. Accordingly the applicant constructed some rooms on the said land because the land was handed over to the trust on lease. For selling the land in dispute Sri Mohana had applied to obtain the permission from the District Magistrate, but before obtaining the permission he died on 12.1.1999, thereafter a dispute arose between Mukesh Kumar Sharma and sons of Mohana. The sons of Mohana were trying to take possession of the land forcibly on which the rooms have been constructed and was given to the said trust on lease. In addition to it, they also tried to take possession of the adjoining land of the trust which had been purchased from one Smt. Nirmla Devi. Both the lands were belonging to Khasra No. 1656, thereafter the trust has filed a suit number 517 of 2002 against Rajaram and others in the court of Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.)- III, Meerut in which the interim order to maintain status-quo till the disposal of suit was passed. Mukesh Kumar Sharma was also filed a case No. 941 of 2002 against Mohana and others in which learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) passed the order. Sri Mohna had also executed a registered will on 27.8.1998 thereafter Mukesh Kumar Sharma was declared owner of the land. Sri Mukesh Kumar Sharma Raja Ram and applicant discussed issue with the parties concerned to dissolve the controversy and reached to an agreement that land of Khasra No. 1656/2 Maliyana will be sold to the trust by Mukesh Kumar Sharma and Raja Ram and Ors. once the name of either of the above persons entered in the (revenue record, but the trust did not agree to enter the name of Mukesh Kumar Sharma in the revenue record. There was oral agreement between the applicant Raja Ram and others also, thereafter Rajaram and others used to create trouble in taking over the possession of the land of the trust. In the present case learned S.D.M. had also passed a illegal order dated 11.8.2006 to transfer the possession of the said land and building to Sri Rajaram. The trust also filed a revision No. 182 of 2004-05 in which the order to maintain the status-quo was passed. In this case SH.O. T.P. Nagar also showed the transfer of possession to Rajaram on the record whereas on site no transfer of possession was done. Sri Mukesh Kumar Sharma also filed a revision No. 3636 of 2006 against order passed by learned S.D.M. Meerut, in which learned Addl. Session Judge, Meerut stayed the operation of the order passed by learned S.D.M. Concerned. Sri Mukesh Kumar Sharma lodged an FIR against Rajaram and others for playing the fraud with him, in case crime No. 271 of 2007 u/s 420 IPC, P.S. Jani, District Meerut. Thereafter O.P. No. 2 also lodged FIR of the present case on 28.10.2007 but without doing the further investigation the chargesheet in the present case has been submitted. Even on the basis of the allegation made against the applicant no offence under Sections 447, 504 IPC and Section 198 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is made out. It is a case purely of civil in nature for which, the proper remedy is available either in civil court or in revenue court. Therefore, the chargesheet submitted against him may be quashed.

In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that in the present case chargesheet dated 20.11.2007 has been filed in the court of learned Magistrate concerned on which the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance an summoned the applicant to face the trial. The I.O. has collected the evidence and submitted the chargesheet. The remedy of claiming the discharge as prescribed by code of criminal procedure is available to the applicant, but without availing the same the applicant had approached this Court directly. The offences in which the chargeshet has been submitted are triable by court of magistrate. There is no illegality in submission of the charge sheet, the allegations are of criminal in nature, the present application is devoid of the merits, the same may be dismissed.

Considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case chargesheet has been submitted in the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Meerut on which the cognizance has been taken and applicant has been summoned to face the trial. The offence is trialled by court of Magistrate. The proper remedy for moving the discharge application is available to the applicant. The trial court is proper court to decide the discharge application because complete record is available there. It is not a proper stage to express any opinion on the issues raised by the counsel fort he applicant, because the same shall be subject matter of the trial court, in case the applicant moves the discharge application before the court concerned through his counsel before the court of learned Magistrate concerned within 60 days from today, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of law. Till the disposal of the discharge application, if any bailable or non bailable warrant has been issued by the learned magistrate concerned, the same shall be kept in abeyance.

According this application is disposed of.