Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 82 (UTT)

Rajni Juyal v. State of Uttarakhand

2011-02-15

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2011
Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5210 of 2010; State Vs. Shambhu Prasad Juyal and another, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate First, Dehradun. 3. Factual disputes have been raised by the petitioners, and it is pleaded that the petitioners had earlier filed a criminal complaint against the present complainant (respondent No. 2). However, it is admitted that an agreement was signed by petitioner No. 2 in favour of the complainant (respondent No. 2) to execute sale deed in respect of land in question owned by him and part of consideration was paid by the complainant to the petitioners. The complainant has pleaded that he was cheated of more than rupees ten lakh, as the petitioner and his wife did not honour the agreement. After investigation, charge sheet appears to have been filed by the police. 4. Having gone through the papers on record, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and that of State, this court does not find it to be a fit case to interfere with the trial so far as it relates to the offences punishable under Section 420 and 506 of I.P.C. However, as far as the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, said offence relates to wrongly dispossessing a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe from his land or premises in respect of which he has a right over such land. Since, in the present case, admittedly, neither the land was ever transferred to the complainant nor he was given possession thereof, the ingredients of said offence are not made out. 5. Since, in the present case, admittedly, neither the land was ever transferred to the complainant nor he was given possession thereof, the ingredients of said offence are not made out. 5. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is partly dismissed to the extent the petitioners are facing trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 420 and 506 of I.P.C., but so far as trial relates to offence punishable under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the trial against the petitioners namely Smt. Rajni Juyal and Shambhu Prasad Juyal are quashed, as even if the prosecution story is taken to be true, the ingredients of said offence are not made out in the present case. To that extent the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands allowed.