Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33581 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44574 of 2024 Applicant :- Devki Shankar Yadav And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhawani Prasad Shukla,G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Second supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2 is also taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Ram Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party as well as Sri Bhawani Prasad Shukla, counsel for opposite party no. 2. 4. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, application U/S 482 is being decided at the fresh stage. 5. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 391 of 2022 (Sashi Vs. Devki Shankar and others), under Sections 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Tharwai, District Prayagraj, pending before the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that proceedings under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. stood lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 27.09.2022 being Application No. 308 of 2022 before the Special Judge SC/ST Act with an allegation that the applicants happened to be the owner of Gata No. 864 minjumla measuring area 0.0460 hectares which stood purchased from Khinni Lal by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 15.10.2018 and proceedings for mutation also stood culminated into passing of an order dated 04.09.2019 in favour of the opposite party No. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that on 29.06.2022 at 10.00 in the morning when the opposite party No. 2 had gone to take the possession of the land in question then the applicants acted as a gang and they started cultivating the land while claiming their possession over the land and when the same resisted then caste based abuses were also hurled and the opposite no. 2 was also chased away therein. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there already stands instituted a suit No. 1656 of 2022 (Devki Shankar and another v. Vinod Kumar) before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Room No. 17, Allahabad on 23.05.2022 and while inviting attention towards first supplementary affidavit dated 11.02.2025 page 13 of the paper book, it is being sought to be submitted that the court below accorded an injunction in favor of the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants while further inviting attention towards page 64 of the paper book submits that the Gata No.864 miljumla is co-owned by the opposite party No.2/ her husband to the extent of 0.0460 hectares and while inviting attention page 66, it is further contended that the applicants also own the land in part 0.1710. 7. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the said suit instituted on 23.05.2022 and injunction order was accorded on 26.05.2022 but taking recourse to the proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. stood preferred on 27.09.2022. He further submits that in para 4 of the said application, the only statement made is that when the opposite party No. 2 had gone to lodge first information report then the police had only assured and the applicants came back. Submission is that no such incident took place as dispute is primarily and essentially a civil dispute which is being given a criminal tinge while alleging caste based abuses were hurled. 8. Shri Bhawani Prasad Shukla who appears for opposite party no. 2 on the strength of the arguments in the counter affidavit dated 07.03.2025 has sought to argue that though the Araji in question is miljumla but that does not mean that the applicants would encroach upon the land of the opposite party No.2. He further submits that the land in question basically belongs to the opposite party No. 2- Shashi, however, the injunction has been sought on 26.05.2022 while making Vinod Kumar as a party who happens to be the husband, thus, injunction would not bind the opposite party no. 2 as the injunction suffers from the vice of non-joinder and mis-joinder of proper and necessary parties. He further submits that the applicants have not disclosed the factum that already against the applicant nos. 1 and 3 having a criminal case no. 47 of 2006, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Tharwai, District Prayagraj has been lodged and which is pending. He further submits that there is no recital of the fact, thus, on account of the non-disclosure of the same, the application is liable to be rejected. 9. Shri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned AGA who appears for the State-opposite party has submitted that from the facts which have been disclosed in the pleadings inter se between the parties, there happens to be a dispute regarding the land wherein the Araji number is stated to be a miljumla and further there is an injunction order also in existence in favor of the applicants. 10. Shri Rajkumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants has invited the attention towards the second supplementary affidavit filed today dated 25.02.2025 so as to contend that with respect to the case crime no. 47 of 2006, a first information report stood lodged on 09.05.2006, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Tharwai, District- Allahabad and a charge-sheet had also been submitted but the applicants have been enlarged on bail on 13.02.2013 and with respect to the first information report being FIR No.0166 of 2023 lodged on 25.07.2023 relatable to the commission of offense on 25.07.2023 against the applicant no. 2 under Section 506 and 406 IPC, they are post lodging of the complaint dated 27.09.2022, he further submits that while inviting attention towards para 23 of the application that in the said case, charge-sheet has not been filed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 12. The basic question which falls for consideration is whether this Court who come to the rescue of the applicants while interfering in the proceedings at this stage or not. In order to analyze the said aspect what is relevant is the genesis of the entire criminality which is sought to be slapped upon the applicants. First and foremost, there happens to be a miljumla plot 864 which is as per the khatauni at page 64 and 66 is co-owned by the applicants and opposite party no. 2/ her husband. The said fact has been disputed while interpreting that the page 64 against the name of the opposite party no. 2, Shashi, Slash (/) has been used which does not denote that Vinod Kumar along with the opposite party no. 2 is the owner as in all the khataunis, the name of the husband or the spouse stands mentioned. This court at this juncture is not required to go into the aspect regarding the ownership and the title of Vinod Kumar. What is more understandable in the facts and circumstances of the case is that there happens to be an injunction order in favor of the applicants on 26.05.2022, post filing of a suit on 23.05.2022. The complaint in question has been lodged in the month of September, 2022. Once there happens to be a serious disputes regarding the ownership of the land and the parties inter se are before the competent court agitating their rights then in these circumstances, it can very well be said that the dispute is of civil nature. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh; (2020) 18 SCC 763 followed in Hitesh Verma v. The State of Uttarakhand and another/ (2020) 9 SCR 593 had occasion to consider the aspect that the provisions of Section 3(2)Va of SC/ST Act shall only be attracted, once an offence has been committed against a person on the ground that such person is of SC/ST coupled with the fact that offence has been committed only because the victim is SC/ST. In the present case, we find that that there happens to be a civil dispute already pending between the parties regarding ownership and once the same being factual position, it cannot be ruled out that there happened to be a serious dispute. 14. Apart from this, the Court finds that there is no allegation of any injury as the sections in that regard have not been invoked also. So far as the aspect regarding disclosure of the criminal case No. 47 of 2006, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC is concerned, the FIR stood lodged in the year 2006 much before the incident itself and the applicants stand to be enlarged on bail on 13.02.2023 as apparent from Annexure-4 from para 4 of the second supplementary affidavit. As regards, the case crime no. 0166 of 2023 lodged on 25.07.2023 under Sections 506 and 406 IPC are concerned, the same was lodged by one Shivam Tripathi against the applicant no. 2 in which as per the disclosure made in para 23 of the application, charge-sheet has not been submitted. Interestingly, the said case is post lodging of the complaint by the opposite party no. 2. 15. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that the offenses are not made out, accordingly, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 391 of 2022 (Sashi Vs. Devki Shankar and others), under Sections 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Tharwai, District Prayagraj, pending before the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj stands quashed as against the applicants 16. Accordingly, the present application U/S 482 stands allowed. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 A. Prajapati Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad