KEDAR NATH SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to quash the order dated 3.5.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 452 of 2011 and order dated 4.10.2011 passed by the A.C.J.M., Court No.7, in Case No. 1156 of 2011, Prem Chandra Vs. Satya Prakash and others, summoning the applicants.

(2.) Brief facts are that the opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants and three others, which was treated as complaint The opposite party no. 2 is a poor man and his mother Autari Devi is an aged lady. The opposite party no. 2 is pairokar of his mother to whom the State granted lease of certain land, which was earmarked by the Halka Lekhpal on 12.7.2009, 26.7.2009 and 3.9.2009. But, in spite of the land being earmarked, the accused are not permitting the mother of the opposite party no. 2 to make 'medh' on the land. Later on the Tehsildar was ordered to record First Informatnion Report on the application of the opposite party no. 2 or his mother. This order has not been complied with by the opposite party Tehsildar till date although many applications have been moved in this behalf and further on this the Tehsildar abused the opposite party no. 2 and asked him not to come again. On 7.10.2009 when the opposite party no.2 and his mother Autari Devi went to work on the fields, the applicants started abusing the opposite party no. 2 and his mother and assaulted them with lathi and dandas upon which they saved their lives by running into the house. Thus, application under Section 156(3) was filed which was ordered to be treated as an complaint case.

(3.) It has been argued that on behalf of the applicants that although the possession was handed over on the lease land to Autar Devi but this lease was later on cancelled by the Assistant Collector, Allahabad and, thus, Autari Devi was not in possession of the land at all. It has been further argued that this is counterblast done by the opposite party no. 2 to save himself. It has been further argued that if twelve persons had assaulted the opposite party no. 2 and his mother, there is no reason why they did not sustain any injuries as there is no injury report on record.