IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C 482 Criminal Misc. Application No. 289 of 2005 Sanjay Kumar and others. ………..Applicants. Versus. State of Uttaranchal and another. …….Respondents Present: Mr. Mohd. Azim, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Gopal Krishan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. By means of this criminal misc. application under section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioners have challenged the order dated 05.04.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur vide which petitioners have been summoned for the offence punishable under sections 426, 452, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). Complainant Mahendra Singh (respondent no. 2) filed a complaint before Civil Judge, (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur on 19.03.2005 stating therein that a civil suit bearing no. 242 of 1993 was filed by Bhukan Lal, grandfather and father of the applicants /petitioners against the complainant and his family members. The suit was decided against Bhukan Lal and since then all the accused persons/ applicants were having grudge against the complainant and his family members. They want the complainant to vacate the property question 2 in suit and they want to purchase the same. Now, one of the applicants Rishikant has filed another civil suit no. 105 of 2004 against the complainant before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur has directed the parties to maintain status quo. The complainant is a small farmer and belongs to backward class, the applicants /petitioners have threatened the complainant number of times, therefore, complainant submitted a complaint before SDM and SHO, police station – Jaspur on 24.02.2005 and on 09.03.2005 but no action has been taken on his complaints. On 17.03.2005 at about 07.00 O’clock all the accused entered the courtyard of complainant by scaling the wall and pushed the complainant and his mother. They also threatened him with dire consequences. Out of fear complainant closed the door and remained inside the house. All the accused remained in the premises of his house for 10 minutes. They also broke the old wall of complainant’s house and caused damage to the tune of Rs. 300/-. According to the complainant, Tej Pal Singh Chauhan, Shakeel Ahmad, Ram Singh and Darshana Devi, mother of the complainant had seen the occurrence. Complainant went to the police station to lodge the report but report was not recorded by the police official rather they threatened him as accused applicants are influential persons having political connections. 3 Learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses namely Shakeel Ahmad and Ram Singh under section 200 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, summoned the petitioners under sections 426, 452, 504, 506 IPC vide order dated 05.04.2005. Since aggrieved petitioners have moved the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly a civil litigation is pending between the parties for a long time. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, ancestral house of the petitioners and house of respondent no. 2 and Surendra Singh, brother of respondent no. 2, are situated adjacent. There is a vacant public place behind the house of the petitioners but the complainant and his brother want to encroach the said land. They had illegally constructed a septic tank over the land in the year 2003. Petitioners made a complaint to the SDM, Kashipur. The matter was inquired by the Tehsildar and as per his report, complainant Mahendra Singh and Surendra Singh had encroached over the public land, therefore, demolition of the septic tank was ordered. Complainant and his brother again tried to construct septic tank over the said area but petitioners filed injunction suit on 29.06.2004 to restrain them from constructing the septic tank by making encroachment over the area. Thus, civil court vide order dated 08.10.2004 directed both the parties to maintain status quo on the spot. A suit was filed by 4 Bhukan Lal predecessor of the petitioners against father of the complainant Mool Chand in the year 1993 in which Mool Chand has been restrained to interfere in reconstructing the wall by fixing patnala and ventilator. Since then complainant and his brother have filed several complaints against the petitioners to higher authorities from time to time but they have not succeeded in their unlawful designs. Now, as a counter blast complainant submitted complaint before the SSP on 17.03.2005 and thereafter, filed complaint in the court. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are false and manipulated and have been filed as a counter blast to the civil litigation. It is further argued that no offence as alleged by the complainant under section 426, 452, 504, 506 IPC is made out. In fact, the allegations made in the complaint are vague and contradictory. There is no prima facie evidence that complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 300 and any wall has been demolished by the petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that from the statements of the complainant and witnesses examined under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it is clearly proved that petitioners had entered the courtyard of the complainant and had demolished the wall of the complainant and petitioners had also threatened him and his mother with dire consequences. 5 On careful consideration of submissions raised by learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the complaint filed by Mahendra Singh, I am of the view that present complaint filed by the complainant appears to be an outcome of civil litigation. It is not disputed that civil litigation between the parties is pending since 1993. The averments made in the complaint do not constitute any offence, as most of the averments are vague and contradictory. On the one hand, complainant alleges that accused petitioners entered the courtyard of the complainant by scaling the wall of his house and pushed him and his mother and he also states that he closed door of his house and remained inside due to fear. It is further stated that petitioners broke the wall of his house and caused damage of Rs. 300. In case, petitioners had broken the wall, petitioners had no occasion to scale the wall of the house for entering in the courtyard. The statements of witnesses are also contradictory. Shakeel Ahmad stated that petitioners were armed with lathi and danda whereas the complainant himself does not mention that petitioners were armed with any weapon. Statement of Ram Singh is also totally different than the statement of Shakeel Ahmad. He has simply stated that petitioners had entered the house of the complainant and were hurling abuses. They were demolishing the wall of Mahendra Singh. He has further stated that in order to save himself Mahendra Singh and all his family members 6 had enclosed themselves inside the house by closing the door of the house. From the bare perusal of the statements of complainant and the witnesses, it appears that none of the allegations made by the complainant are substantiated or supported by cogent evidence. Thus, it appears that false and vexatious complaint has been filed by respondent no. 2. Accordingly, summoning order dated 05.04.2005 appears to be glaring abuse of process of law. In fact, prima facie no case is made out against the petitioners. Criminal misc. application is allowed. Complaint and impugned summoning order are hereby quashed. (Nirmal Yadav, J) 20.07.2010 SKS