Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 208 (ALL)

Hargovind Singh v. State of U. P.

2017-01-16

AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT Amar Singh Chauhan, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case. Applicant Hargovind Singh, through this application moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for quashing the entire proceedings against the applicant arising out of Criminal Case No. 880 of 2015 (State Vs. Hargovind and others) arising out of case crime No. 695 of 2013, under sections 147, 352, 504, 506, 427, 419, 420, 447 IPC, PS Barsethi, district Jaunpur. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant had purchased a piece of Bhumidhari land, which is adjacent to the road, area 0.093 hectare from the Ghata No. 543, Plot No. 195/0.76 hectare through registered sale deed from the applicant, but after three years he came to know that the applicant has sold some part of the land in question by showing Rasta in the plot of the informant. When informant started constructions, number of persons including the applicant came on the spot and demolished the pillar and wall of the informant and also threatened him for life. It is submitted that the police filed the charge sheet after concluding the investigation, whereas no case is made out against the applicant. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant as there is a wrongful loss to the informant and wrongful gain to the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, prayer of the applicant is refused. Accordingly, prayer of the applicant is refused. Insofar as the prayer of the applicant for consideration of his bail application on the same day in the light of the law laid down by seven judges Bench in the case of Amrawati and another Versus State of UP reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State of UP, reported in 2009(3) ADJ 322 (SC) is concerned, this court notices that a Division Bench while deciding Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15609 of 2016 (Brahm Singh and 2 others Vs. State of UP and 2 others) has observed that in the light of the authoritative pronouncement so made, no separate direction needs to be made in each and every case. Taking note of the apprehension of the learned counsel that earlier circulars of this Court issued in compliance of the Court's order have not been followed by the courts below, the division Bench in Brahm Singh (Supra) issued a further direction that in case the courts below fail to follow the law as declared in letter and spirit not only would adverse inference be drawn but also the Court would be compelled to take appropriate action against the errant judicial officer. This should clearly allay all apprehensions of the learned counsel. Taking note of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Brahm Singh (Supra), this application is disposed of.