MUNNI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, holding brief of Sri M.P. Singh Yadav, for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) By the present application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought for quashing of the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, III, Rampur by which, after rejecting the final report submitted by the police, cognizance has been taken and the applicants have been summoned under Sections 379, 504, 506 I.P.C. The applicants have also sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in pursuance of the above order pending as Case No.556 of 2012 in the said Court, arising out of Case Crime No.199 of 2012, under Sections 379, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Shahzaad Nagar, District Rampur.

(3.) A perusal of the record reveals that a First Information Report was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants and one Preetam Singh alleging that the applicants had cut away 3 year old "Poplar" trees standing over plot no.324 belonging to the informant and that when the informant protested, he was threatened. It was further alleged that the accused had earlier also cut away trees worth lacs owned by Ram Janki Murti Virajman Mandir. After investigation, the police submitted a final report stating that the plot of the informant was coming under Chak Road, therefore, to create pressure false case was set up and commission of any offence could not be substantiated. Against the final report, a protest petition was submitted by the opposite party no.2. In para 4 of the protest petition (Annexure 5 to the affidavit) it was alleged that after registering the FIR the police neither recorded the statement of the informant nor inspected the spot or prepared site plan. In the protest petition, various documents were mentioned which, according to the informant, were relevant but not considered by the investigating agency. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the protest petition it was stated that those documents, which were not considered by the Investigating Agency, were being filed along with the protest petition.