Decided on June 22,2012



SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, prayer has been made to quash the Criminal Case No. 5340/2007, Shyam Baba v. Surendra Sharma & Others. In the said case, the learned Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun, by the order dated 6.9.2007, has summoned five accused persons including the present four applicants petitioners, namely, Surendra Sharma, Jaikab Massy, Prem Massy and Naval Kishore Sharma to stand trial for the offences of Section 427, 504, 506 IPC.
(2.) THE background facts qua controversy are that private opposite party Shyam Baba moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC on 12.4.2005 against seven accused persons including the petitioners. The dispute revolves around a property ad measuring 4 bighas situated at Raipur Road, Dehradun. That property initially was purchased by Smt. Kashimani whose daughter Smt. Shakuntala Devi authorized the complainant to move the aforesaid application dated 12.4.2005 wherein a number of allegations have been made against the petitioners regarding the quarrel which took place between the parties. It was also alleged that the petitioners damaged the property of Smt. Shakuntala Devi in her absence and also destroyed a private temple and some silver utensils. On the aforesaid application, the learned Magistrate thought it fit to get the case registered and made an order accordingly on 13.4.2005. The incident was investigated by the police after registration of the FIR on 20.4.2005 against the accused persons including the petitioners in pursuance of the orders of the Magistrate. After investigation, the alleged incident was not found to be true and the police submitted Final Report on 14.6.2005. It appears that after protest by the complainant Shyam Baba, the Magistrate directed for further investigation on 29.9.2006. But after further investigation too, nothing was found substantive and the police again submitted the Final Report. Shyam Baba again filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate, considering the facts involved in the controversy, accepted the Final Report vide his order dated 5.2.2007, contained in Annexure No. 7 to the petition. But by the same order, he accepted the protest petition as a complaint case and posted the matter for recording of the statements under Section 200 and 202 CrPC.
(3.) AFTER considering the statements of Shyam Baba made under Section 200 CrPC and his witness Smt. Priyanka Sharma under Section 202 CrPC, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order of cognizance dated 2007. 6. It has been contended on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the dispute is virtually civil in nature, as both the parties have filed civil litigations against each other seeking injunction. Smt. Shakuntala Devi through her power of attorney filed the Civil Suit No. 756/1993 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun and got the injunction order against the petitioners directing them not to interfere with the possession of Smt. Shakuntala Devi over the property in question. On the other hand, petitioners also filed a Civil Suit No. 789/1991 against Smt. Shakuntala Devi and got an ad interim injunction.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.