Punjab-Haryana High Court
Iqbal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 October, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRR No. 2186 of 2011 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh.
CRR No. 2186 of 2011
Date of Decision:- 30.10.2012
Iqbal Singh Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.
Present: - Mr.Akashdeep Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shekhar Moudgal, AAG, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 to 6.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J.
The facts in short compass are that petitioner Iqbal Singh son of Badam Singh, resident of village Katha, Tehsil and District Baghpat (Uttar Pradesh), presented a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, inter-alia alleging that he owned and possessed six Bighas of land situated within the revenue estate of village Khurumpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. Sugar-cane was sown in the said land. When the sugar-cane was ready for CRR No. 2186 of 2011 2 harvesting, then, respondents No. 2 to 6, namely, Surajbhan, Chanderbhan, Veer Sain, Madan Sain and Vikas in furtherance of their common intention took away the sugar-cane from the land of the petitioner-complainant and thereby caused a huge loss to the petitioner-complainant. When the petitioner requested the respondents-accused not to repeat the offence, they threatened him (petitioner) with dire consequences of killing him and causing damage to his property. On the basis of the complaint dated 19.10.2006 presented by the petitioner-complainant, FIR No. 237, dated 19.10.2006, under Sections 379, 411 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Kundli, District Sonepat. The respondents-accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was presented in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. After completing the formalities as enshrined in Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both the parties were heard and the charges were ordered to be framed against respondents No. 2 to 6 (accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 12.05.2011.
Dissatisfied with the order of framing the CRR No. 2186 of 2011 3 charges, the accused-respondent Nos 2 to 6 filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, which was accepted vide judgment dated 06.07.2011 and the order passed by the trial court framing the charge was set-aside. The petitioner-complainant has challenged the above said judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, by way of the present criminal revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per report dated 31.10.2006 handed down by Jai Singh Patwari, the land in dispute was situated within the revenue estate of village Khurumpur, owned by Gram Panchayat of village Khurumpur, and one Parbhu son of Nihal son of Yad Ram was recorded as gair maurusi tenant while the petitioner-complainant had sown sugar-cane in the said land. He further argued that the learned trial court had framed the charges after finding a prima facie case against the respondents No. 2 to 6. He further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, had accepted the criminal revision petition considering the issues which were to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial, therefore, he prayed for acceptance of the criminal revision petition by setting aside CRR No. 2186 of 2011 4 the order dated 06.07.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 6 submitted that no material was available on record to prima facie establish that the petitioner-complainant was owner in possession of the land in dispute. He further submitted that, in fact, the respondents-accused were owner in possession of the alleged land. He further argued that in the complaint dated 19.10.2006 allegedly presented by the petitioner-complainant, he failed to mention the description of the land in dispute in the form of rectangle and killa numbers thereof, therefore, the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the identity of the land in dispute. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, police had obtained a report from the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sonepat, about the status and location of the land comprised in killa Nos. 290 and 291, situated within the revenue estate of village Khurumpur, District Sonepat. Jai Singh, Halqa Patwari of Kundli, in his report dated 31.10.2006 scribed that as per the revenue record, Khasra Nos. 290 and 291 were not in existence and the land comprised in Khasra No. 2/16-17- 18-21-22-23 was owned by village Panchayat, Kundli, as it CRR No. 2186 of 2011 5 fell in the State of Haryana. He further submitted that according to the Dikshit Award, the land had been recorded in the name of Parbhu son of Nihal son of Yad Ram, resident of Nagla, as gair mourusi tenant and in the killa number from which the alleged crop of sugar-cane was cut, was sown by Iqbal Singh son of Padam Singh (complainant) but the same was taken away by the respondents-accused. He further submitted that the respondents-accused had placed reliance upon the sale deed to establish that they were owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 287 and 291 and the mutation dated 19.05.2006 had been sanctioned in their favour. He further submitted that the said fact was fortified by a report dated 22.08.2006 scribed by the revenue authorities from Utter Pradesh. He further submitted that the land in dispute owned and possessed by respondents No.2 to 6 was situated in the basin of river Yamuna. During the rainy season river Yamuna changes its water course and usually disputes arise between the farmers of the two States i.e. Haryana and Utter Pradesh. He further argued that on account of the change of water course, the complainant wanted to falsely implicate the respondents No. 2 to 6. He further submitted that the petitioner-complainant lost his case up to this court (High CRR No. 2186 of 2011 6 Court) with regard to the superdari of the sugar-cane. On the basis of above averments, he prayed for dismissal of the criminal revision petition.
Heard.
In the complaint dated 19.10.2006 on the basis of which, the FIR was registered, the petitioner did not mention the rectangle or khasra numbers of the land owned and possessed by him. No copy of jamabandi or khasra girdawari was enclosed with the said complaint. The version contained in the report dated 31.10.2006 scribed by Jai Singh Patwari is contrary to the contents of the complaint dated 19.10.2006 wherein complainant alleged that he was cultivating the said land as sub-tenant under Parbhu son of Nihal and later he claimed himself to be owner in possession of the land in dispute. The report submitted by the Halqa Patwari reveals that killa Nos. 290 and 291 were not available in the State of Haryana. A perusal of the order dated 06.07.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, reveals that no jamabandi or Khasra Girdawari was taken into possession by the police showing that the Gram Panchayat, Khurumpur, District Sonepat, was owner of the land in dispute comprising in killa Nos. 290 and
291. CRR No. 2186 of 2011 7 After going through the material available on record, it transpires that the petitioner and respondent No.1-State of Haryana has not been able to bring anything on record to prima facie show that Iqbal Singh petitioner- complainant owned and possessed the land in dispute, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, has committed no error in setting aside the order dated 12.05.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat, whereby the charges were ordered to be framed against respondents No. 2 to 6.
Resultantly, for the reasons recorded above, the present criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed being sans merit.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE 30.10.2012 Anoop CRR No. 2186 of 2011 8