AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order of cognizance dated 16.08.2018 passed by learned ACJM-XIII, Gopalganj in Registration No. 674/2018, Inquiry No. 76/2018 arising out of Complaint Case No. 674/2018, where learned court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 379/34 of the IPC against the petitioners.
Opposite Party No. 2, joins the present proceedings.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Brichchan Choudhary, had cultivated masoor crop over three kathas of land in Plot No. 1113, which had grown fully. On 13.03.2018 at about 10:00 A.M., he found the accused persons cutting the “masoor crop” and tying it into bundles. When he protested, the accused persons allegedly assaulted him, whereafter he moved away and saw them taking away the bundles of crop worth approximately Rs. 3,500/-. The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by villagers and passer by. It is further alleged that when the complainant approached the police station to report the incident, no FIR was lodged. Consequently, on 14.03.2018, he also submitted a registered application before the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, but no action was allegedly taken.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present complaint case was lodged out of ulterior and oblique motive to counter the FIR lodged by this petitioner, which was registered as Phulwaria P.S. Case No. 244/2017 on 29.11.2017. It is submitted that version of complaint which raised for the theft of masoor daal worth Rs. 3,500/- is not believable in the background of land dispute and also complaint petition not appears supported through affidavit, which appears in violation of legal ratio as settled through legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, [(2015) 6 SCC 287]. It is submitted that moreover the dispute appears civil in nature for which present criminal case is completely un-occasioned and unwarranted and, therefore, impugned cognizance order is fit to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions learned counsel relied upon the report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Rikhab Birani and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [2025 SCC OnLine SC 823].
It is also pointed out that just for the allegation of committing theft of masoor dal worth Rs. 3,500/- putting accused persons on criminal trial that to in the background of land dispute is nothing but to settle the personal vengeance out of ulterior and oblique motive. It is submitted that petitioners could not be put on criminal trial in such mechanical manner and in support of his submissions learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Others, [(1998) 5 SCC 749].
Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant, while opposing the petition could not disupted the submission as the core issue between the parties is land dispute. He also could not dispute that complaint was filed without affidavit.
In view of aforesaid factual and legal discussions and by taking note of the fact as complaint appears filed without supported affidavit, which appears in violation of legal ratio of Priyanka Srivastava Case (supra) and further complainant is a counter of earlier lodged FIR by these petitioners, accordingly, impugned order of cognizance dated 16.08.2018 along with all its consequential proceedings, qua, all above named eight petitioners arising thereof as passed in Complaint Case No. 674/2018, pending before learned ACJM-XIII, Gopalganj is hereby quashed and set aside.
Hence, this application stands allowed.
TCR (Trial Court Records), if any, be returned to the learned Trial Court alongwith the copy of this judgment.