PHULGAIN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8825 of 2023

Phulgain And 3 Others
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)         : Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    : G.A., Rachna Vyas, Syed Wajid Ali

Court No. - 75
                      HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicants, Ms. Rachna Vyas, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2,
Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the
record.

3. Despite name of Ms. Rachna Vyas being printed in the cause list, there
is no vakalatnama on the record. Office to trace it out and place it on the
record and make a note about it in the order sheet.

4. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants- Phulgain, Baliram, Rajendra and Rajeshwar with the
following prayers:-

"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to quash the impugned summoning order dated
10.11.2022 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Complaint
Case No. 5390 of 2022, under Sections 420, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police
Station Chandauli, District Chandauli, pending before the court of Civil
Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Chandauli.

It is further prayed that further proceedings of the aforesaid Criminal
Complaint Case No. 5390 of 2022 in pursuance of the summoning order
dated 10.11.2022 may kindly be stayed during the pendency of the
present application under Section 482 Cr.P.c. before this Hon'ble Court,
so that the justice may be done; otherwise the applicants shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury and/Or may pass such other and further orders
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case."

5. Counter affidavit dated 31.03.2023 of the State is on the record.
                                                                                A482 No. 8825 of 2023
                                             2


Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not propose to file
any rejoinder affidavit to the same.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that she does not
propose to file any counter affidavit in the matter.

7. A complaint dated 11.8.2022 was filed by the opposite party no. 2
against the applicants (Phulgain, Baliram, Rajendra, Rajeshwar) and
Shubham Prajapati for the offences under Sections 500, 501 and 384
I.P.C. with the allegation that on 08.11.2021 he had purchased a land
from Rakesh falling in Arazi No.1334 having area 1146 square feet equal
to 106.60 square meter, situated at Mauja- Chandauli on its appropriate
value and on 08.11.2021 in Arazi No. 1333 area 2616 square feet equal to
243.12 square meter situated at Mauja- Chandauli from Rakesh Prajapati
and Phoolwanti. Names of Rakesh Prajapati and Phoolwanti were
recorded as owners in possession in the land in revenue records. On the
basis of sale deed dated 8.11.2021 the complainant came in possession of
the said land. He then moved an application for mutation before
Tehsildar, Chandauli but the accused as being a party made objection
regarding it on 08.07.2022 for which they had no legal right. They are
people of criminal nature and are involved in disputed dealings of land.
They made objection with intention to cause dispute. They used
unparliamentary language. They even demanded money for getting the
name mutated in the revenue records. In support of the complaint the
statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement
of Namvar Singh as P.W.-1 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and Rajan Singh
as P.W.-2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Vide order dated
10.11.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C.,
Chandauli Phulgain, Baliram, Rajendra, Rajeshwar were summoned for
the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. The present application
has thus been filed before this Court with the aforesaid prayers.

8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.03.2023 passed
the following orders:-

"A perusal of the impugned complaint, the material in support thereof and the impugned order passed by
the Magistrate at Chandauli dated 10.11.2022 shows that the Magistrate has summoned the applicants to
stand trial for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC when prima facie none of those
offences or any other offence is disclosed against the applicants.


The allegations in substance against the applicant are that the complainant after purchase of certain land
from its recorded tenure holder has applied for mutation which the opposite parties, using their resources,
are opposing and not permitting to be effected. The applicant alleges that this has led to his good
reputation in society and honour being adversely affected.


There is no doubt an allegation that the applicants have demanded money from the complainant in order
to let his mutation go through as such about that there is hardly and intangible evidence on record.
                                                                          A482 No. 8825 of 2023
                                            3


Admit.


Issue notice.


Notice be made returnable on 13.04.2023.


Learned AGA to file a counter affidavit within four weeks.


Opposite party No.2 may file return within the same period of time.


List on 13.04.2023.


Until further order, proceeding in Complaint Case No. 5390 of 2022 under Section 420, 468 & 471 IPC,
P.S. Chandauli, District Chandauli, pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Tract Court,
Chandauli, shall remain stayed."


9. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the order
summoning is totally erroneous inasmuch as the applicants have been
summoned under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. whereas no offence
whatsoever is made out against them in the said sections as per the
complaint and even enquiry conducted by the trial court concerned. It is
submitted that as such the summoning order is bad in the eyes of law and
thus the impugned summoning order and the proceedings be quashed.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that although 5
accused have been named in the complaint but only 4 have been
summoned vide order dated 10.11.2022 under Sections 420, 468, 471
I.P.C. whereas the allegations in the complaint are totally different and the
offences are totally different than that under which sections they have
been summoned.

11. Learned A.G.A. has also been heard who has opposed the prayers and
the petition.

12. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the present complaint has been filed under
Sections 500, 501 and 384 I.P.C. with the allegations that the accused
being 05 in number, have caused disrepute and insulted the complainant
and have also demanded money for his land mutated in which they have
objected when he applied for mutation. The summoning of four accused
who are the present applicants, is under Sections 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. as
per the impugned order dated 10.11.2022. The same does not, in any
manner, gets synchronized with the allegations levelled in the complaint
as well as the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202
Cr.P.C.

13. The impugned summoning order dated 10.11.2022 is set aside and the
matter is remanded back to the court concerned for passing appropriate
                                                                                             A482 No. 8825 of 2023
                                                                     4


                                    orders in accordance with law.

                                    14. In so far as the prayer for quashing of the proceeding is concerned, the
                                    same is hereby refused since the summoning order has been passed in
                                    different sections as discussed herein above.

                                    15. Needless to state that the court concerned shall pass orders afresh in
                                    accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations
                                    of this Court in this order.

                                    16. The applicants are directed to file this order within 10 days before the
                                    court concerned from today, it shall then pass appropriate orders within
                                    three weeks thereafter. Since the parties have appeared before this Court
                                    and are duly represented the court concerned may not issue fresh notice to
                                    them as this order is being passed after hearing them.

                                    17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

                                    18. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in part.

                                    19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.



                                                                                               (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Naresh




Digitally signed by :-
NARESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad