Ram Bachan Yadav and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State.

This is an application for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 2628 of 2008, Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Ram Bachan Yadav and Ors. under Sections 384, 504 and 506, I.P.C. pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia.

A complaint against four accused persons including S.I. Tribhuvan was filed by the Respondent No. 2 before the learned Magistrate. All the accused persons were summoned to face trial but this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the 3 accused persons only excluding the S.I. Tribhuvan. As per complaint case on the basis of forged agreement to sell, on 10.8.2008, accused person Nos. 1 to 3 {Applicants of present case) came at the door of the house of the complainant at about 4 p.m. they asked to the complainant and his brother that their mother had executed an agreement to sell in their favour of the house 4-5 years ago. They pressed them to vacate the house, so that they may live there. Complainant and his brother tried to inquire about the agreement to sell, they became annoyed and badly abused them and said that if they will not agree to vacate the house, they will come again alongwith muscle men and will oust them from the house forcibly and it they obstruct them, they will be killed. On 11.8.2008, the Applicant moved an application regarding the occurrence at chowki of police station. Chowki Incharge asked Head Constable to all the parties. Accused persons/Applicants were summoned at the chowki and chowki Incharge asked them not to repeat the occurrence. Later on under the conspiracy of incharge of chowki of police station, accused No. 4, again the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were called and complainant and his brother were pressed to sign on two stamp papers forcibly. Under their pressure, although they raised objection but they had signed the papers when the chowki Incharge abused them to face the consequence, if they do not sign the papers. Witnesses who were in their company were also pressed to sign those papers but they refused to sign the papers and later on they agreed to sign only when the photostat copies of the papers is supplied to them. When they agreed to supply the photostat copies, only then they signed those papers and later on copies of the same was supplied to them. Annexing the photostat copies of these papers, this complaint was filed. Complaint case was registered. After recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure learned Magistrate was of the opinion that prima facie case is made out, so accused persons were summoned to face the trial for the offence detailed above. Aggrieved by. this order, this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved.

Learned Counsel for the Applicants argued that mother of the complainant was agreed to sell the house in dispute to them and they entered into an agreement to sell the house for Rs. 2,00,000, out of which Rs. 1,95,000 were already paid to mother of complainant and a registered agreement to sell was executed. Severally mother of the complainant and after her death two sons were asked to execute the sale deed but they have not paid heed to their request. There were other money transactions between the Applicants on one hand and the complainant and his brother on the other hand but they were not repaying the amount advanced to them by the accused persons and with dishonest intention and with an ulterior motive to usurp the money advanced by the Applicants and also not to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement, with false and frivolous allegations, this complaint has been filed. Witnesses examined by them in support u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure are relatives of the complainant and learned Magistrate without applying his judicial mind, summoned the accused persons for their trial. Dispute between them is of civil nature and only to pressurize the accused persons, this complaint has been filed.

At the time of arguments, learned Counsel for the Applicants also placed before the Court, the photostat copy of the two documents on stamp papers and also a copy of the order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ballia in Suit No. 437 of 2008, Shiv Kumar v. Ram Bachan showing that civil suit was also filed by the complainant and order was passed by the Court dated 18.11.2008 on the Application 6C-2 for issuing ad-interim injunction in the matter against the Applicants.

The two photocopy of documents on stamp papers filed were taken on record. From perusal of the photo copies, it reveals that some money transaction on one paper with Shiv Kumar, Respondent No. 2 and other with Ashok Kumar, his brother were shown between them as first party and Ram Bachan and Prem Nath Prasad as second party. It is mentioned in these documents that Ashok Kumar and Shiv Kumar had borrowed some money from the second party and assured that they will return this amount after selling their house within one year and if they fail to pay the same, they will transfer the land in favour of the second party.

Learned A.G.A. argued that on this document, said to has been executed by Shiv Kumar, informant in the marginal side date 14.8.2008 is clear which corresponds to the date shown by the complainant in the complaint and said that on the same date their thumb impressions were obtained by the accused persons under the conspiracy and collusion of Incharge of the chowki when he badly abused them and threatened them to face the consequences, if they do not sign the same.

My attention was also drawn by the learned A.G.A. on the fact that although, in the alleged agreement to sell, delivery of possession was not shown to the accused persons/Applicants but in the affidavit annexed with application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, they are trying to claim that under the agreement, possession was delivered to them. Learned A.G.A. argued that this shows the mala fide intention of the accused persons that under the garb of this statement, they want to take forcible possession on the House in dispute as complainant said in his complaint.

It was further argued by learned A.G.A. that according to the Applicants, complainant and his brother were neither executing the sale deed nor returning their money advanced under the agreement to sell, accused persons will again advance them money to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000 to Shiv Kumar and Rs. 5,90,000 to Ashok Kumar on 14.8.2008, it is not probable and believable. Learned A.G.A. argued that these two documents narrate the action of the accused persons itself and in the circumstances the case taken by in the complaint cannot be held unreliable and false. Learned Magistrate rightly after taking cognizance on the complaint and relying on the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, summoned the accused persons to face the trial. There is no illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the impugned order.

Criminal and civil proceedings are separate and independent and pendency of civil proceeding cannot bring to an end the criminal proceeding, even if they arise out of the same set of facts.

From perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the Applicants. All the submissions made at the Bar relates to disputed question of facts which cannot be adjudicated by this Court u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure At this stage, only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, There may be disputed defence of the accused but it cannot be considered at this stage. It will be seen at the proper time and stage of the case. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the arguments of parties counsel, I do not find any ground to quash the complaint and proceeding in the matter.

Application is hereby dismissed, accordingly.