SC Dismisses Azam Khan And Other's Plea Against Allahabad HC Order Refusing To Quash FIRs Relating To Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Khan (who is the Chancellor of the Mohammad Ali Jauhar University) and other SLP petitioners told the bench of Justices M. R. Shah and C. T. Ravikumar : "This is an interesting case. After 13 years, FIRs were lodged. Your Lordships will find that the complaints are in the same handwriting. All 26 of the FIRs are verbatim. The first FIR is by a revenue officer and gives the names of all the farmers who have made this allegation that they were coerced into entering into a sale agreement and then forcible possession was taken in 2006 and the university was set up. That is the allegation. After this, there is a separate FIR registered in each of these cases but by the same farmers.

They say that 'Former minister Azam Khan and former CO Aley Hasan Khan forcibly got executed sale deeds in favour of the university. Whenever we demanded possession over the land, they threatened us with life'....This is after 13 years that this allegation is being made. This is the allegation. What happened then is that in 2019, they filed eviction proceedings before the revenue Authorities, these very farmers. There, they say they have been deprived of possession in 2019 by the University. They say they are continuously land owners. This was the suit of 2020. They say that the university does not have any concern with the land, that it is Illegally occupied land on the strength of his political standing and there is no legal right. Here, they say the Possession is taken in 2019 but the FIRs in 2019 say that it was taken in 2006. 12 July 2019 is the date of the FIR, time is 2 o’clock in the morning. This was the first FIR by the revenue officer which states, on the basis of the affidavit submitted by the farmers concerned, that the former minister pressured them to execute sale of the said land. In the revenue proceedings, they say that they are land owners and continue to be in cultivation of the land. They say, 'I was taking care of my family by cultivating over my land. At the time of construction of the university, Azam Khan took over my land'. Here, they said they were pressurised to execute the sale deed forcibly in favour of the university and they were threatened to be implicated in false cases of Charas and smack and many times, they were kept in jail for whole days, that every time they asked for their lands back, they were given life threats. 13 years later, they filed an FIR, all of them together. Each allegation becomes a separate FIR of each farmer. In the eviction proceedings, they say the cause of action arose in 2019. We went to the High Court and said these proceedings have to be quashed. Obviously, it is Politically motivated"

In the impugned judgment, the Allahabad High Court on September 30, 2022 had observed, 'After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records it emerges that the applicants in the above mentioned 482 Cr.P.C. petitions except for Aley Hasan Khan who was the then Circle Officer (City), Rampur and a Police Officer and later on was the Chief Security Officer of the University, are the office bearers of the Society/Trust. In so far as Aley Hasan Khan is concerned, he is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations of his threatening the first informants (except for the first informant of Case Crime No. 224 of 2019), keeping them in confinement illegally, assaulting them, threatening them of being involved in cases of charas and smack if they do not execute sale deeds of their respective lands in favour of the University and then taking forcible possession of their land.

In so far as the other applicants are concerned, they are the office bearers of the Society/Trust. The society has also been charge sheeted. The First Information Report of Case Crime No. 224 of 2019 was lodged by Manoj Kumar, Revenue Inspector, Area Khaud, Tehsil Sadar, Rampur. After registration of the same, several complaints were made by various persons being the owners of their respective land making complaint of taking of their land forcibly by abducting them, physically assaulting them and threatening them of dire consequences. The other First Information Reports level allegations to the effect that the respective first informants were threatened, illegally confined, pressurized to execute sale deeds in favour of the University, threatened of being involved in cases of charas and smack, were assaulted and then their lands were forcibly taken from them. The matter was investigated by the police and charge sheets in all of them were submitted. The complaints were made by different persons which were registered as separate cases. It was only then that every aggrieved person came forward and opened up with regards to the manner in which his land has been forcibly taken from him illegally. The allegations in the First Information Reports reveal as to how the respective first informants were abducted, assaulted, threatened and their land was forcibly taken from them by coercion and not following the due process of law. The said acts were of different dates, time, place of abduction and manner of activities. In totality, the allegations were common but the dates and identification of land taken forcibly are different. The first informants who are the victims will be having different sets of witnesses to support and substantiate their allegations for the offences alleged. Therefore, it cannot be said that for the same act multiple First Information Reports have been lodged. The crime committed against each individual for his land, his abduction and threatening is an altogether separate offence. The first informants are different in each and every matter and the identification of land is different in each and every case. The situation would have been different if in all the cases, though they look the same would have complained about an incident at the same time and place with the same property in question in all of them. The reports narrate of different incidents of different dates and time involving different victims and different land though the accused in all the matters are common including the applicant. With different dates, time, identification of land and victims, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant regarding the same being hit by the doctrine of sameness is unacceptable. The judgments relied by the learned counsels for the respective applicants are distinguishable on facts of each case as in the said cases a solitary case had multiple First Information Reports lodged for it. As already observed, in the cases in hand, the incident is not solitary. It has every aspect in it different except for the modus- operandi to be identical in some cases. Therefore, every victim who was subjected to different acts constituting an offence, has raised his grievance and the incidents in each case are of different dates, time covering different piece of land. Therefore, registration of different First Information Reports, in the peculiar facts of the case, cannot be said to be at fault and cannot be set at naught. The accused will have to defend himself in each and every case independently against the individual respective victims. Merely by not giving a notice under Section 441 Cr.P.C. will not be a ground to quash the entire prosecution case as various other offences are disclosed from the reading of the first information report itself and the evidence collected during investigation....Thus, it is trite law that at the stage of quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused. The accused can raise their grievances while claiming discharge at the appropriate stage before the trial court. Looking to the facts of the case, the prima facie allegation against the applicants and the law well settled as stated above, no case for interference is made out"