Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 368 (ALL)

Dilip Singh v. State of U. P.

2025-02-24

VIKAS BUDHWAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : Vikas Budhwar, J. 1. Heard Sri Jitendra Sarin, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A., who appears for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 482 CrPC preferred by the applicants for quashing the Charge Sheet dated 25.11.2021 and the entire proceeding of Case No.92394 of 2023 (State Vs. Dilip Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.53 of 2021, under Sections 147, 427, 323, 506 IPC, pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), F.T.C.-1st, Varanasi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though an FIR under Sections 147, 427, 323, 506 IPC stood lodged by the first informant against the applicants being FIR No.0053 on 29.01.2021 relatable to commission of offences from 19.01.2021 to 21.01.2021 with an allegation that the land in question being Araji No.1871 Raqba 4050 sq. ft. is owned by his parents. However, the applicants herein are seeking to encroach upon the said land and dispossess. Allegation is also to the extent that when the boundary wall was constructed, same was demolished by the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants happen to be the member of Shiv Barat Samiti and the said land is not owned by the applicants, particularly, the land which the opposite party claims is a part and parcel of the Araji No.1872 which is acquired land of the Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that Shiv Barat Samiti had also preferred PIL No.38300 of 2011 before this Court, in which orders were passed directing the applicants to prefer a representation ventilating all their grievances and there happens to be a report/ order of the Varanasi Development Authority depicting the fact that the land is not owned by the opposite party faction, as the same is a part and parcel of Araji No.1872. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the O.P. No.2 faction also preferred Writ-C No. 36169 of 2019 (Vishnu Dutt Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & others), in which an interim order was passed alleging demolition of the boundary, a Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1148 of 2021 was preferred, in which notices had been issued. Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that the allegations contained in the contempt petition as well as in the FIR are totally at poles apart and they have been falsely implicated. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants next submits that the allegations contained in the contempt petition as well as in the FIR are totally at poles apart and they have been falsely implicated. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the documents available on record and in particular, the statement of the independent witness the same corroborates the happening of the said incident. He further submits that the disputed question cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations contained in the FIR stick to the fact that there has been demolition of the wall. There happens to be an interim order granted in favour of the opposite party against violations, contempt application had been preferred and notices have been issued. This Court at this stage is not required to delve into the issue relating to the aspects of contempt and further what is to be seen is the fact as to whether offences are made out or not. In absence of showing any jurisdictional error, this Court is not required to go into the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC particularly, when the trial has not commenced, in the background of the dictum in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , AIR 2021 SC 1918 6. In view of the same, this Court declines to interfere in the present proceedings. 7. The application is accordingly dismissed . At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a direction be issued to the court below for consideration of the bail, if preferred by the applicants. 8. This Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case applicants move appropriate proceedings before the court below for enlargement of bail, then the same may be decided with most expedition in accordance with the law of the land keeping in view the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2022) 10 SCC 51