Mahaveer Prasad Rawat v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Court No. - 81 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9571 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mahaveer Prasad Rawat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶1Heard Sri Surendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. K. Pandey, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 6 and Sri R.K.Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents no.1 and 2.

¶2This criminal misc. petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no.06, Mathura in Criminal Revision No.159 of 2021 (Mahaveer Prasad Rawat vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order dated 19.07.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Matura in Complaint Case No.2908 of 2018, under Sections 147, 217, 219, 380, 420, 427, 477A, 477, 201, 120B, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mahawan, District Mathura.

¶3Submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner lodged an F.I.R. on the basis of application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegation that the first informant Mahaveer Prasad Rawat, Advocate had filed a Civil Writ No.26415 of 2014 before the Allahabad High Court, in which an order was passed on 13.05.2014 for removing encroachment from plot no.69 area 177 ares. The first informant obeyed the orders of the court. Thereafter a R.T.I. application was filed on 13.08.2014, which was replied by Tehsildar on

04.10.2014 and he came to know from this reply that a case under Section 115 C, Case no.347 of 2014 is pending in the court of Tehsildar, Mahawan. Opposite party started construction, therefore, he moved an application in the court of Tehsildar for staying the new construction and also moved an application under the R.T.I. to obtain information regarding the action taken. He was not given any information and was directed to apply for information as per Rules. He moved another application for obtaining the copy of the ordersheet but he came to know that no such proceeding was pending in the court concerned.

¶4After investigation the I.O. filed a final report. The first informant protested against final report by moving application on 11.07.2018. This protest petition was treated as complaint. Statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C.. The informant/complainant was heard and the learned Magistrate passed an order on 19.07.2021 dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.. The complainant preferred Criminal Revision no.159 of 2021. Both the sides were heard and a detailed order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura on 24.08.2023 dismissing revision and affirming the orders passed by the trial court.

¶5The submissions of the petitioner in nutshell is that there was sufficient evidence for summoning the accused persons. However, ignoring the evidence on record learned trial court declined to summon the accused persons and passed the order in arbitrary manner. The revisional court without appreciating the evidence on record and the points raised by him in revision affirmed the order passed by the trial court.

¶6Respondent no.4 has, on the other hand, contended that the allegation is confined to the fact that the file of revenue case no.347 of 2013-14 was not found and went missing and that he was given wrong information by the revenue officer/officials. The only allegation is that no action was taken by the revenue authorities on his complaint and that they are colluding with private respondents no.4, 5 and 6. Further my attention has been drawn to the fact that Tehsildar and Lekhpal have been arrayed as respondents no.2 and 3.

¶7My attention has been drawn to para 6 of the impugned order dated

19.07.2021 passed by trial court which is as below:- "जहहा तक वहाद ससं० 347/14 उपररो्ሹ ककी पतहावलली ववपकलीगण दहारहा कहली वछिपहा ददेनदे व चरोरली कर न्ቖ वकयदे जहानदे सम्बन्धली पररवहादरली कदे अवभिकथनरो कहा ्ቚश्न हह, उलदेखनलीय हह वक पतहावलली पर तत्कहाललीन जजलहाजधकहारली मथथुरहा दहारहा रहाजस्व पररषद उ०्ቚ० करो ्ቚदेवषत पतहासंक ससं० 57/पन््ቖह बली/वशि०जल०/2016 वदनहासंवकत

14.07.2016 ककी ्ቚवत उपलब्ध हह जजसमम वहाद ससं० 347/13-14 ककी पश्चहातवतቔኍ वहाद ससं० 278/14-15 पहायहा गयहा हह तथहा पररवहादली ककी वशिकहायत परलीकणरोपरहासंत वनरहाधहार पहायली गयली हह। य्ቕवप पररवहादली कहा कथन हह वक वहाद ससं० 278/14-15 व वहाद ससं० 347/13-14 वभि्ቐ पतहावजलयहा हह, परन्तथु इस सम्बन्ध मम करोई ठरोस सहाቌኚय पतहावलली पर ्ቚस्तथुत नहली वकयहा गयहा हह। यहहा यह भिली उलदेखनलीय हह वक ्ቚश्नगत पतहावलली वहाद ससं० 347/13-14 कदे गथुम हरोनदे कदे सम्बन्ध मम ववजधक कहायरवहाहली कहा अनन्य अजधकहार सम्बनन्धत रहाजस्व्ቚ हाजधकहाररयरो करो हह, जबवक उनककी ओर सदे वहाद ससं० 347/13-14 करो गथुम हरोनहा न पहातदे हहए उसकहा पश्चहातवतቔኍ वहाद ससं० 278/14-15 कजथत वकयहा हह। ऐसदे मम ्ቚश्नगत पतहावलली वहाद ससं० 347/14 कदे गथुम हरोनदे कदे सम्बन्ध मम वकयदे गयदे पररवहादली कदे अवभिकथन बलहलीन ्ቚतलीत हरोतदे हह।"

¶8On submissions of both sides, it appears that the subject matter of dispute is non availability of the file of Case No.347 of 2014. The matter was taken up by the department and the Revenue Board, by its letter dated 14.07.2016 dealt with the complaint of the petitioner. It was found that file was very much available with a new No.278/18/15 and actually never went missing. In my view, the allegations as contained in the protest application had no substance and were rather absurd and that the trial court rightly dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The revisional court did not find any ground to disturb the order dated 19.07.2021.

¶9In my opinion, the petition is without any substance and is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Asha High Court of Judicature at Allahabad