DILIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(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 Sec. 482 CrPC preferred by the applicants for quashing the Charge Sheet dated 25.11.2021and 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 Ss. 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 Ss. 147, 427, 323, 506 IPC stood lodged by the first informant against the applicants being FIR No.0053 on 29/1/2021 relatable to commission of offences from 19/1/2021 to 21/1/2021 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.