MANOJ TIRODKAR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ishan Deo Giri & Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

(2.) This application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dtd. 30/1/2024, of Complaint Case No.1070/504 of 2023 (Veer Pal Singh Saini Vs. Manoj Tirodkar and others), under Ss. 441, 447, 406, 420, 120B IPC, Post- Newari, Tehsil Modi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad U.P., pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad.

(3.) It has been submitted by learned Senior Advocate that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. As per version of complainant, the applicants' company has installed tower at the land of opposite party no.2/complainant for a period of 10 years and in that connection agreement was made between the parties. It was further stated that the said company has not been made party in the impugned complaint and that no statutory notice has been issued to applicants for offence under Sec. 447 IPC. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that merely because said agreement could not be extended further or that company has not removed its towers from land of complainant, no offence under Sec. 406 IPC is made out. There is no evidence of entrustment to the applicants. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon following case laws: