Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kaur vs Baldev Singh And Others on 29 August, 2014
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
RAVINDER SINGH
-1-17:36
2014.09.03
CRM-A-1201-MA of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-1201-MA of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.08.2014
Surinder Kaur
....Appellant
Versus
Baldev Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: - Mr. Aruz Khan, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
Crl. Misc. No.22900 of 2014
For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and delay of 50 days in re-filing the application for grant of leave to appeal is condoned.
CRM-A-1201-MA of 2014 The instant application has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar, whereby respondents have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 447, 427, 506 (part II) and 120-B IPC in a complaint case.
Brief facts for disposal of the case are that
-2-
CRM-A-1201-MA of 2014
petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Sections 447/427/506 read with Section 120 IPC against the respondents alleging that father of the complainant, namely, Harbhajan Singh had taken the property in question on lease from Punjab Wakf Board in the year 1987, who died on 05.11.1990. Name of Harbhajan Singh was mentioned in the column of cultivators in the fard jamabandi as well as in the khasra girdawri. The land in question was in possession of the petitioner after the death of his father and she was cultivating the same. It is averred that respondents have illegally entered/trespassed in the property in dispute and also damaged and destroyed the wheat crop sown in the property in dispute. Despite complaint, police did not take any action against the respondent. Hence, the complaint was filed.
After recording preliminary evidence respondents were summoned to face trial. After appreciation of pre-charge evidence on record charges under Sections 447, 427, 506 (Part II), 120-B IPC were framed against the respondents to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
To prove her case, complainant stepped into witness box as CW1 and proved on record various documents. Complainant also examined Satnam Singh as CW2, Sant Ram as CW3 and Liaquat Ali as CW5.
After appreciation of evidence on record, learned JMIC dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondents of the charges vide impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. -3- CRM-A-1201-MA of 2014 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that impugned judgment passed by learned JMIC is based on surmises and conjectures and outcome of misreading of oral as well as documentary evidence. Learned Magistrate has erroneously acquitted the respondents.
I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned Magistrate has categorically recorded a finding that appellant/complainant was not in possession of land in question i.e. khasra No.86. CW2 in cross-examination has admitted that Government Senior Secondary School, Pandori Nijjran has been constructed in khasra No.86 with the grant of Rs.57 lacs by the Punjab Government. Moreover, the appellant/complainant has also failed to prove that respondents/accused persons entered upon and tried to take the forcible possession of the land in question on the day of alleged occurrence. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Complainant in her cross-examination stated that 200-250 persons along with respondents/accused persons entered the suit land for taking forcible possession and damaged the wheat crop of the complainant. However, she has admitted that she never got recorded the fact of having 200-250 persons with complainant or taking forcible possession in her complaint as well as in earlier statement made before the Court. CW2 -4- CRM-A-1201-MA of 2014 Satnam Singh in his cross-examination has stated that complainant was alone at the time of alleged incident. Neither complainant nor Satnam Singh CW2 have told the names of about 200-250 persons who allegedly came along with the respondents. CW2 has deposed in favour of the appellant/complainant only being disciple of dera of the complainant. It is proved on record that already civil litigation was pending between the appellant/complainant and the respondents/accused, therefore, she was targetting the respondents. Appellant/complainant has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of respondents. Therefore, respondents have rightly been acquitted of the charges.
I do no find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment.
Dismissed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge August 29, 2014 R.S.