Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20347 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43514 of 2024 Applicant :- Naresh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Beerendra Pratap Singh,Indra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. This Court on 18.12.2024 directed the learned A.G.A. to serve the notice upon O.P. No.2. Thereafter on 17.01.2025, following order was passed: "Learned AGA has filed a copy of the compliance affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record. Office is directed to proceed accordingly. It is stated that notice is served upon opposite party no.2 through wife, however, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2. It is submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer in demarcation proceedings under Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, present applicants have constructed boundary wall over the plot in question, however, same has been demolished. There is nothing on the record as to when revenue team has been constituted to demarcate the land in question and fixed point for demarcation. Learned counsel for the applicants has prayed for and granted two weeks' time to file supplementary affidavit in this regard. Put up this matter as fresh on 05.02.2025." 3. Though the matter has been taken up in the revised list, and till the dictation of the order, nobody is present on behalf of the O.P. No.2 despite service upon it. 4. Since the service is deemed to be sufficient upon O.P. No.2 and nobody is appearing on its behalf and the learned A.G.A. does not propose to file any response, and the learned counsel submits that the matter be proceeded to be decided, this Court is proceeding with the matter. 5. The case of the applicant is that the applicant no.1 is the owner of Gata No.499 area 0.405 hectare and just adjacent to it happens to be Gata No.497. A complaint came to be lodged by O.P. No.2 pursuant to the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC against the applicants on 14.01.2024, pursuant whereto statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC stood recorded. 6. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, as per the narration of the allegations in the Complaint Case No.57 of 2024 is concerned, the same centers around the fact that on 06.01.2024, the applicants along with other co-accused encroached upon the place of O.P. No.2 and thereafter with the aid of JCB Machine started excavation and also resorted to uprooting the crops, which were already standing there. It is further alleged that beating was also administered and caste-based abuses were also hurled. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that primarily the dispute in question is regarding demarcation of the land, as proceedings stood initiated under Section 24 of the Land Revenue Code, 2006, which stood decided on 20.12.2023 by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Etah, and while drawing attention of this Court towards Annexure- S.A.1 at page- 14 of the Supplementary Affidavit, it is contended that a recall/restoration application also came to be preferred by one Anokhe Lal, the opposite party faction, which came to be rejected on 06.07.2024. He further submits that in order to give colour though in the statement under Section 200 of CrPC of the husband of the victim, there is no allegation that the victim, who happens to be the wife of O.P. No.2 was stripped off, but one of the witnesses being Sunil Kumar has deposed that the wife of the applicant no.2 had stripped off her clothes. Submission is that such a crucial allegation ought to have been spelt out by the husband of O.P. No.2, who is in relationship with the victim. He submits that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. Though the dispute is civil in nature, but it has been sought to be given colour of criminality. Moreover, a first information report also stood lodged on 16.06.2024 under Sections 147, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC against O.P. No.2 and their faction regarding commission of the offences. 8. Learned A.G.A., who appears for the State could not dispute the said fact, as according to him, the narration contained in the complaint as well as statements under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC itself demonstrates that there has been exaggeration in the statement under Section 200 CrPC. He further submits that as per the documents available on record there happens to be the proceedings initiated under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which stood decided in favour of the applicants. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that primarily the dispute is regarding the demarcation, which stood decided in favour of the applicants in proceeding under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and the recall application stood rejected. Further in so far as injury is concerned it is not apparent from the record that any injuries sustained and so far as the allegation relating to stripping of the clothes of wife of the O.P. No.2 is concerned, O.P. No.2 neither in the complaint nor in his statement under Section 200 CrPC has deposed anything, but one Sunil Kumar one of the witnesses has deposed the same, which cannot be given much weightage in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 11. The summoning order dated 18.10.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.57 of 2024 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. Naresh and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3(2) Va of SC/ST Act, P.S. - Marhara, District- Etah, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah, stand quashed. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad