Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2017
1
M.Cr.C.No.6107/2016
(Ram Singh v. State of M.P.)
08/02/2017
Shri S.S. Rajput, Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent no.1/State.
Shri S.S. Raghuvanshi, Counsel for the respondent no.2.
With the consent of the parties, heard finally. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the F.I.R. in crime no. 158/2016 registered by Police Station Aaron, Distt. Guna for offences under Sections 294,323,327,506, 34 of I.P.C.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the application in short are that the complainant/ respondent no.2 has lodged a F.I.R. on 12-5-2016 against the applicants on the allegations that about 3 years back he had purchased one plot from Chandrabhan Singh Raghuvanshi which was situated between the plots of Rambabu Raghuvanshi and Halke @ Devendra Singh Raghuvanshi. On 12-5- 2016 he had gone to his plot and was laying lines of lime-stone powder, at that time near about 5 P.M., the applicants came there and said that why the complainant has started work without seeking permission from them. The complainant informed that the plot belongs to him and he is starting the construction of his house. The applicants started abusing him and said that without their permission no body can raise construction. They also said that 2 M.Cr.C.No.6107/2016 (Ram Singh v. State of M.P.) if the complainant wants to construct his house, then he has to pay Rs. 20,000 to them. The complainant was assaulted by them as a result of which he had received injuries on his back. The police on the basis of this information, registered the F.I.R. for offences punishable under Sections 294,323,327,506,34 of I.P.C.
It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicants that in fact it is civil dispute and the complainant was trying to take possession of the plot of the applicants. It is submitted that the applicant no.1 has purchased 2700 Sq. Ft. of land by registered sale deed dated 17-7-2012 whereas the complainant has purchased the plot subsequent thereto. It was further submitted that under the garb of the sale deed which was subsequently executed on 29-8-2013, the complainant wants to take possession of the plot belonging to the applicants. It was further submitted that the Tahsildar Aaron had also directed the parties to maintain status quo inspite of that the complainant tried to take possession of their plot. Complaints were also made by them to different police authorities.
Per Contra, the Counsel for the respondent no. 1/State referring to the M.L.C. report of the complainant submitted that in the M.L.C. injuries were found on the body of the complainant which corroborates his ocular evidence.
3 M.Cr.C.No.6107/2016(Ram Singh v. State of M.P.) The Counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that it is incorrect to say that the complainant has purchased the plot belonging to the applicants. In fact both the plots are different and it is the business of the applicants to blackmail the innocent persons of the Society and they are in habit of extracting money.
Heard, the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the application and reply.
The basic contention of the applicants is that in fact it is the complainant who is trying to dispossess the applicants on the basis of the sale deed which was executed on 29-8-2013 whereas the applicants had purchased 2700 sq. ft. of land by registered sale deed dated 17-7-2012.
The applicants have placed their sale deed on record and the respondent no. 2 has also placed his sale deed on record. From the perusal of both the sale deeds, it is clear that the applicants had purchased 2700 sq.ft. of land out of total land of Kh. No. 821/1/2 and the complainant has also purchased 1500 sq. ft. of land out of total land of Kh. No. 821/1/2. It is not out of place to mention here that Kh. No. 821/1/2 is a bigger piece of land out of which a piece of land was sold to the applicants as well as the complainant. Therefore, under this circumstance, the boundaries would be the prima facie guideline to show that whether both 4 M.Cr.C.No.6107/2016 (Ram Singh v. State of M.P.) the sale deeds are in respect of same plot or they are in respect of different plots.
So far as the plot of the applicants is concerned, as per the boundaries mentioned in the Sale deed, on the East Side of the Plot, the land of Chandrabhan Singh is situated and on the Western side there is a public way. On Northern side of plot, the land of Parmal Singh is situated whereas on the Southern side of plot, land of Shivram Singh is situated. Whereas as per the boundaries of the plot purchased by the complainant, on the Northern side side of the plot, land of Rambabu Raghuvanshi is situated and on the Southern side, the land of Dr. Sunil Raghuvanshi is situated. On the Western side, the remaining land of the seller is situated and on the Eastern side, Ashoknagar road is situated.
Thus, it is clear that the boundaries of the plot sold by two different sale deeds are different. It is not in dispute that Chandrabhan Singh has sold the different plots to the applicants and the complainant.
Thus, prima facie, it is clear that the complainant has purchased different plot and therefore, the contention of the Counsel for the applicants cannot be accepted that the complainant was trying to take possession of his plot.
Further more, from the copies of the complaints which have been filed along with the present application, it is clear that the applicant 5 M.Cr.C.No.6107/2016 (Ram Singh v. State of M.P.) no.1 has made allegations against Chandrabhan Singh that he is trying to dispossess him from the plot which he has purchased and he is saying that he would give some other plot. Thus, it is clear that there is no allegation or report against the complainant, that he had ever tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the applicants over the plot which was purchased by them.
Undisputedly, none of the parties have approached the Civil Court for establishing their right. Under these circumstances this Court is of the view that prima facie from the sale deeds which have been placed on record, it appears that the applicants as well as the complainant have purchased different plots. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant has lodged a false report in order to forcibly take possession of the plot belonging to the applicants.
Hence, this Court is of the view that the F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence and therefore, the same cannot be quashed.
Hence, this application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
(ra) Judge