A K RAJVANSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.K. Rajvanshi, Nirmal Sharma, Mahabir Tyagi, Rati Ram, Dbarmvir, Khem chand. Smt. Raj Rani Pathak, Nanak chand. Radha Swami and Karan Singh have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 274 of 1986 in which these persons along with one D.S.P. Srivastava were sum mooed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad under Sections 295, 295-A, 379, 120-B, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. All the applicants admittedly are employed in the Ordnance Factory, Murad Nagar, District-Ghaziabad. The summoned, persons had preferred Criminal Revision No. 87 of 1986 against the summoning order 3-3-1986 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad. The VIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad who beard the said criminal revision No. 87 of 1986 allowed it in part inasmuch as he by his order dated 28-7-1986 set aside the summoning of Sri. D.S.P. Srivastava but maintained the summoning order against the present applicants. However the order indicates that the summoning under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code had not been upheld by the VIIth AddI. District and Sessions Judge while disposing of the said revision.

(2.) The facts of this case are as follows: Ramesh Chandra Sharma, opposite party No.2 filed a complaint before the Munsif, Ghaziabad on 24-1-1986 alleging therein that on 16.1.1986 the present applicants in league with D.S.P. Srivastava despite an injunction order not to interfere with the possession of said Ramesh Chandra Sharma had attacked him and had looted away his property after injuring his wife Surja Devi. It was alleged that since the applicants had attacked and entered the temple while the ladies including his wife were per forming kirtan etc. hence they were liable to be punished under Sections 295 and 295-A or the Indian Penal Code also. It was also asserted and proved later on that Ramesh Chandra Sharma had sent a written First Information Report relating to the said incident by registered post to the Superintendent of Police on 16-1-1986 itself. The-claim-of the complainant was that since the claim of the complainant was that since the police had not taken any action hence the complaint was filed. The Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code and recorded the statement of 13 other witnesses under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter the Magistrate by his order had summoned the applicants alongwith Sri D.S.P. Srivastava as stated above.

(3.) When the applicants had challenged the summoning order before the court below in revision it was contended that the Magistrate had erred in taking cognizance of the matter in, view of the provisions of Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. It was also urged that in view of the fact that regular suits for injunction had been filed previously by the complainant and one Jagannath Fakkar through whom the complainant claimed to, have derived the title of pujari of the temple and since the complainant and Jagannath Fakkar had failed in their cases they had designed to prevent dispossession of the complainant from Sheo Temple by filing this complaint mala fide to give colour to this case despite the fact that the complainant had been evicted from the temple as he had proved to be a security threat for the, Ordnance factory, within the campus of which the temple is situated of which the complainant was a pujari.