Punjab-Haryana High Court
Niranjan Singh S/O Rabi Singh vs Dara Singh & Ors. ---Respondents on 12 July, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRA No.792-SBA of 2000 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRA No.792-SBA of 2000
Date of Decision:-12.7.2013
Niranjan Singh s/o Rabi Singh ---Appellant
Versus
Dara Singh & Ors. ---Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.G.S.Punia, Advocate for the respondents-accused.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
The challenge in this appeal preferred by appellant- complainant Niranjan Singh son of Rabi Singh (for brevity "the complainant"), is to the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.9.1999, by virtue of which, his private complaint was dismissed and the respondents-accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 427 and 447 read with section 149 IPC by the trial Magistrate.
2. Tersely, the facts and evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant appeal and emanating from the record, is that initially, the complainant had filed the private complaint against the respondents- accused, pleading therein that he and his brother Sucha Singh were in CRA No.792-SBA of 2000 2 possession of the land in question, situated in village Jargari, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana. The respondents-accused along with their helpers were trying to illegally trespass and dispossess them from the pointed land despite Court orders. The complainant claimed that on 5.6.1993, all the accused armed with sickles (Datts) and lathis had forcibly entered in the land in dispute and destroyed their crops with the help of tractor as they are politically influenced persons. In this manner, the respondents-accused were stated to have committed the offences punishable u/ss 148, 109, 427 and 447 read with section 149 IPC.
3. Taking into consideration the preliminary evidence brought on record by the complainant, the trial Court summoned the respondents- accused to face the trial for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 148, 427 and 447 read with section 149 IPC, by means of order dated 15.7.1993. Ultimately, they were charge sheeted on accusation of having committed the indicated offences, by virtue of charge sheet dated 6.9.1996 and the case was slated for evidence of the complainant.
4. The complainant, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the respondents-accused (after charge) himself appeared as PW4 and examined his son Jagtar Singh as PW1, brother Sucha Singh as PW2 and nephew Jarnail Singh as PW3 in oral evidence, besides tendering copies of khasra girdwari from kharif 1992 to Rabi 1993 (Ex.PJ/1 & Ex.PK/1), copy of order (Ex.PL), copy of judgment dated 15.6.1982 of ADJ (Ex.PM), copy of decree-sheet dated 5.2.1986 (Ex.PN), copy of order dated 31.5.1984 of ADJ (Ex.PO), copy of judgment dated 12.3.1982 of ASJ (Ex.PP), copy of judgment dated 19.9.1983 of ASJ CRA No.792-SBA of 2000 3 (Ex.PQ), copies of statements of counsel for plaintiff (Ex.PR & Ex.PS), copies of jamabandis for the year 1985-86 (Ex.PA & Ex.PB), copy of jamabandi for the year 1990-91 (Ex.PD), copies of khasra girdawari (Ex.PE), (mark A to mark C), (Ex.PF) (Ex.PG), (Ex.PH) (Ex.PJ) & (Ex.PK) etc. in documentary evidence.
5. After the close of the complainant's evidence, the statements of the respondents-accused were recorded. The entire incriminating material/evidence was put to enable them to explain any circumstance appearing against them, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.PC. However, they have stoutly denied the case and evidence of complainant in totality and pleaded false implication.
6. In order to substantiate their line of defence, the respondents- accused have examined Dilbagh Singh Clerk, DRA Branch, DC Office as DW1. They have also tendered Ex.D1 copy of allotment letter dated 17.8.1992, Ex.D2 copy of order dated 18.2.1994 of Collector, Ex.D3 copy of order dated 24.10.1994 of Collector, Ex.D4 copy of order dated 18.3.1994 of Assistant Collector, Ex.D5 copy of khasra girdawari from kharif 1991 to Rabi 1994, Ex.D6 copy of mutation No.4897, Ex.D7 copy of order of Commissioner dated 23.6.1992 and Ex.D8 copy of order dated 2.12.1987 of Collector in documentary evidence. This is the entire evidence brought on record by the parties.
7. Sequelly, the trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, had earlier acquitted the respondents-accused, vide judgment of acquittal dated 15.5.1998. However, in the wake of appeal filed by the complainant, the judgment of acquittal was set aside and the CRA No.792-SBA of 2000 4 matter was remitted back to the trial Court for its fresh decision by this Court, through the medium of order dated 20.4.1999 rendered in CRM No.525-MA of 1998 & CRM No.25708 of 1999.
8. Thereafter, taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the trial Court again dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondents-accused, by way of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.9.1999.
9. The complainant still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal. That is how I am seized of the matter.
10. At the very outset, it may be mentioned here that this appeal was filed in the year 2000 and ultimately it was listed for hearing on 1.7.2013. On that day, Mr.Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate (who happens to be the son of original counsel) appeared for the appellant, sought time to argue and the case was adjourned for today for arguments on his request, but strange enough, he has declined to argue the matter on lame excuses. As he has refused to argue the appeal today, therefore, I have no option but to hear the opposite counsel and to decide the appeal after going through the record, in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case K.S.Panduranga v. State of Karnataka 2013(2) RCR (Criminal) 219.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for respondents-accused, having gone through the entire evidence on record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal.
CRA No.792-SBA of 2000 5
12. As indicated here-in-above, the complainant claimed that he along with his brother Sucha Singh were in possession of land in question and on 5.6.1993, the respondents-accused, armed with weapons, have illegally entered into it and destroyed their crops with the help of tractor. On the contrary, they (accused) have stoutly denied the version and possession of the complainant-party.
13. Above being the position on record, now the short & significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this appeal is, as to whether the complainant and his brother were in possession and the respondents-accused have trespassed into the land in dispute or they were in its possession at the relevant date of occurrence i.e. 5.6.1993 or not ?
14. Having regard to the contentions of counsel for respondents- accused and considering the entire evidence on record with his valuable help, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative as the complainant has miserably failed to prove his possession over the land in question.
15. No doubt, the complainant has appeared as his own witness as PW4 and also examined his son Jagtar Singh as PW1, brother Sucha Singh as PW2 and nephew Jarnail Singh as PW3, who have orally tried to corroborate the allegations contained in the complaint, but, to my mind, no implicit reliance can be placed on their inherent contradictory oral evidence, as the possession of respondents-accused is proved on record by documentary evidence. The relevant documentary evidence of possession of the disputed land would naturally have preference, exclude CRA No.792-SBA of 2000 6 and the oral evidence would pale into insignificant in this relevant connection. Similarly, it cannot possibly be denied that the complainant has produced on record copy of judgment dated 15.6.1982 (Ex.PM), copy of decree sheet dated 5.2.1986 (Ex.PN), copy of order dated 31.5.1984 (Ex.PO), in which, he (plaintiff therein) and his brother Sucha Singh were held to be in possession of the land. Similarly, Ex.PP is a copy of judgment dated 12.3.1982 of revisional Court, by virtue of which, the revision petition filed by one Mohan Singh son of Tarlok Singh, President, Scheduled Caste Land owners Cooperative Society, Jargari, relating to the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.PC, was dismissed. Since the earlier order (Ex.PL), judgment (Ex.PM) & decree sheet (Ex.PN) produced on record by the complainant pertained much prior to the present occurrence, so, the same are not at all relevant to decide the real controversy between the parties.
16. Likewise, the revenue records brought on record by the complainant pertaining to the years 1985 to 1992, to me, would not come to his (complainant) rescue as all these judgments and revenue records pertain to the years 1985 to 1992 and in the instant case, the relevant date of occurrence is 5.6.1993. Not only that, it is duly established on record that the land in question situated in village Jargari, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana was initially allotted by the Government, vide entry No.108 dated 28.11.1956 (rapat roznamcha vakayati) and its possession was delivered to The Scheduled Caste Land owners Cooperative Society, Jargari (for brevity "the society") and the respondents were its bona fide members. The society had deposited few instalments, but later on became CRA No.792-SBA of 2000 7 defaulter in depositing the remaining instalments. However, its name continued to be recorded as in possession in the record of rights (jamabandi) and khasra girdawari (revenue records). Thereafter, out of land allotted to the society, the Collector had illegally allotted some land to the complainant, by means of order dated 7.5.1983 and his brother Sucha Singh, by way of order dated 3.3.1980.
17. As soon as, the society came to know, it challenged the indicated illegal allotment orders before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala on the ground that the land had already been allotted to and the society is in its possession since 1956. The allotment was never cancelled. Its appeal was accepted by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, vide order dated 9.9.1985, who remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision. The order of Commissioner was challenged by the complainant and his brother in revision petition, which was dismissed in limine by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab, by virtue of order dated 2.12.1985. This factual matrix is clearly described in the order dated 18.2.1994 (Ex.D2). In this manner, the evidence produced on record by the accused would reveal that the land in dispute was re- allotted to the society and respondents-accused were its members. The society has already paid the amount, vide allotment letter dated 17.8.1992 (Ex.D1). Thereafter, the Collector (DC) Ludhaina conducted the inquiry and came to the conclusion that the statutory procedure was not prescribed and the allotment in favour of complainant and his brother was totally illegal.
18. Aggrieved thereby, they (complainant & his brother) filed an CRA No.792-SBA of 2000 8 appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Commissioner, by means of order dated 23.6.1992. However, the Collector was directed to examine the matter with regard to the provisions of Rule 9-A (ii) of Nazool Lands (Transfer) Rules, 1956.
19. Sequelly, the Collector thoroughly examined the matter and came to the definite conclusion that the allotment made in favour of society was valid and it was legally in possession of land in dispute, vide order dated 18.2.1994 (Ex.D2), the operative part of which is as under:-
"From the record placed on the file, I have come to the irresistible conclusion that no notice was given to the society for recovering the arrears of instalments as land revenue. Furthermore, no proceedings were taken by the then Collector to review the case and cancel the allotment of the land in favour of the Society due to default in the payment of instalments of price. These provisions are mandatory and without complying with these provisions the allotment of land to Sucha Singh etc. was a patent irregularity. The society was not given an opportunity to explain their conduct regarding the default in payment. Further, the Society has paid the full price of the land in response to the notice of the Collector dated 3.8.1992 and certificate of transfer has been issued on 17.8.1992. From the copies of Jamabandis for the year 1960-61, 1966-67 and 1975-76, it is evident that in the column of cultivation the Society has been shown to be in cultivating possession of the disputed land and still in possession of the same. Thus, it is absolutely clear that the Society is legally in possession of the land allotted to it in 1956. The fact that the Society was allowed to deposit the price of the land and the issue of transfer deed by the Collector, Ludhiana clearly establishes that the land allotted in its favour was not cancelled or reverted to the State.
9. As regards compensation in lieu of the developments made in the land allotted to the petitioners is concerned, no evidence has been adduced by them and, therefore, the question of payment of compensation does not arise. However, the payment made by the petitioners on account of allotment of land out of the disputed land will be refunded to them as per law.
In view of the above discussion, the allotment made in favour of the Scheduled Castes Cooperative Society, Jargari, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana vide Collector order dated 28.11.1956 is held valid."CRA No.792-SBA of 2000 9
20. Not only that, the Society moved an application for correction of khasra-girdawari, which was corrected in its name by the Assistant Collector, vide order dated 18.3.1994 (Ex.D4). The appeal filed by the complainant and his brother was dismissed as well, by the Collector, by way of order dated 24.10.1994 (Ex.D3). Consequently, the change of khasra girdawari of the disputed land was reflected in the revenue record of Kharif 1991 to Rabi 1994 (Ex.D5), vide mutation No.4897 (Ex.D6). The allotment of land to the society and its possession was even upheld by the Commissioner, by means of order dated 23.6.1992 (Ex.D7) and orders (Ex.D2 & Ex.D8) of Collector.
21. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that the land in dispute was initially allotted to the indicated society in the year 1956, possession thereof was also delivered to it and respondents-accused were its members. The complainant and his brother managed to re-allot in their name in a fraudulent manner. As soon as, it came to the notice, the society challenged the allotment of complainant & his brother and its claim was upheld by the Collector, by virtue of orders (Ex.D2, Ex.D7 & Ex.D8). Consequently, the society paid the entire amount, vide allotment letter/receipt (Ex.D1). Accordingly, the revenue record was corrected in its name. The possession of respondents-accused is also reflected in the subsequent revenue record. Therefore, once it is proved on record that the respondents, being members of the society, were in actual possession of the land in question at the relevant date of occurrence i.e. 5.6.1993, in that eventuality, the question of their trespassing or destroying the crops in the disputed land, did not arise at all, which totally demolishes the case CRA No.792-SBA of 2000 10 of the complainant in its entirety and contrary stand projected by the complainant "stricto sensu" deserves to be and is hereby repelled under the present set of acceptable evidence and circumstances.
22. Likewise, there is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. As indicated earlier, the rights of ownership and possession between the parties have already been decided by the competent authorities in the manner depicted here-in- above. If the crux of the evidence on record as discussed here-in-above is put together, then, I cannot help observing that the dispute is purely of civil nature. Having remained unsuccessful to establish his possession, the complainant has filed the false criminal complaint against the respondents-accused in order to wreak vengeance. It is now well settled principle of law that the matter, which essentially involved the dispute of civil nature cannot legally be allowed to become subject matter of criminal proceedings, otherwise, there will be no end of unwarranted litigation and it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the respondents- accused in this relevant behalf. The complainant cannot possibly be permitted to execute a non-existent civil Court decree by putting pressure of criminal complaint on the respondents-accused. This matter is no more res-integra.
23. An identical question came to be decided in case Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Others (2006)6 SCC 736 and Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned about a growing tendency of the people to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases and noticed the prevalent impression that since the civil law remedies are time consuming and do CRA No.792-SBA of 2000 11 not adequately protect the interests of the parties, so, the people have started to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying the pressure through criminal prosecution. It was observed that "such effort should be deprecated and discouraged. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others 2008(1) SCC(Crl.) 259 wherein it was held that the veracity of the facts alleged by the complainant can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and documents by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and if the dispute in question is purely of a civil nature, in that eventuality, the initiation of criminal proceedings by the complainant against the accused is clearly an abuse of process of the Court.
24. Not only that, the same very view was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Joseph Salvaraja v. State of Gujarat and others (2011) 3 SCC(Crl.) 23, in which, it was ruled as under:-
"In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation. In such type of cases, it is necessary to draw a distinction between civil wrong and criminal wrong as has been succinctly held by this Court in Devendra v. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 495, in which, it was held (para 27) that a distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out."
25. To me, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments CRA No.792-SBA of 2000 12 "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. Therefore, if the indicated facts, insufficiency of evidence of complainant, the dispute is purely of a civil nature and totality of the facts & circumstances emerging from the record, as discussed here-in-above are put together, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inescapable and irresistible that the evidence brought on record by the complainant falls short as is required to prove the pointed criminal charges against the accused. The complainant has miserably failed to bring home guilt to the respondents-accused and the trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and correctly acquitted them.
26. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the respondents-accused.
27. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment of acquittal of trial Court is liable to be & is maintained. Consequently, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal filed by the complainant deserves to be and is hereby dismissed as such in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 12.7.2013 AS Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No