Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prahlad Meena vs State Of Raj And Ors on 13 July, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6639/2017
Prahlad Meena son of Shri Ramlal Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5369/2017
1. Prahlad Meena S/o Ramlal Meena B/c Meena , R/o House No.13, Kalyan Nagar 5Th, Ghati Surajpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.L. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuria, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
/ Order
13/07/2018
By this common order, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
(Petition) No.6639/2017 as well as S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
(Petition) No.5369/2017 preferred by one petitioner, namely Prahlad Meena, shall be decided together.
Aforementioned petitions have been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 06.09.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby (2 of 6) [CRLMP-6639/2017] he accepted the revision preferred by the accused-respondents and had set aside the order of cognizance dated 07.10.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.
Briefly stated, the petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. bearing No.444/2006 at Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 (i) (iv), (v) and (viii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after to be referred as the Act of 1989). A copy of the F.I.R. is annexed with the present petition as Annexure-1.
The above said F.I.R. was investigated. The Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report in negative form absolving the accused of offences by holding that it is a case of civil dispute between the parties. After filing of the Final Report in negative form, the complainant filed a protest petition. On 03.08.2011 the protest petition was dismissed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No.26, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. Aggrieved against the same order, the petitioner filed a revision petition. The revisional Court below on 04.06.2013 remanded the matter back to the Court of Magistrate and ordered that after hearing the parties the matter be decided afresh. In between accused came to this Court, the matter was remitted to the revisional Court which in turn again remitted matter to the Court of concerned Magistrate. The Court of Magistrate on 04.06.2013 passed an order of cognizance. Aggrieved against the same, the accused filed a revision petition bearing No.535/2013.
The Court of Magistrate on 07.10.2016 took cognizance of offences against the petitioner only for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 504 I.P.C. The Court of Magistrate came to a (3 of 6) [CRLMP-6639/2017] conclusion that no offence under Sections 3 (i) (iv), (v) and (viii) of the Act of 1989 was committed by the accused.
The petitioner/complainant had also filed a revision assailing the order of cognizance, whereby the accused absolved of offence punishable under Sections 3 (i) (iv) and (v) (viii) of the Act of 1989.
This time also, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 07.10.2016, accepted the revision petition preferred by the accused and had dismissed the revision petition preferred by the complainant. The revisional Court below, primarily, noted that the cultivators, vide an agreement to sell, had sold the land to the members of the society for residential colony and the said society had presented an application under Section 90-B of the J.D.A. Act before J.D.A. for change of user. The revisional Court below noted that a well is situated in Khasra No.46 and regarding ownership of the said well and the Khasra number, there is a dispute between the parties and they have approached the Civil Court. The Court noted that the Investigating Officer, in its progress/ status report submitted that the well in Khasra No.46 was left in favour of the cultivators. The Court noted that the allegation of the complainant that the accused intended to take possession of Khasra No.46 and, hence, has caused damages the well by abusing on the name of the caste is not made out, during investigation. The Court noted that three witnesses produced by the petitioner, namely Yogendra Singh (CD-2), Vinod Pareek (CD-3) and Banwari Lal Sharma (CD-4) have not supported the case of the complainant.
Having noted the contentions of the complainant, the trial Court took cognizance for offences under Sections 447, 427 and 504 I.P.C. and concluded as under :-
(4 of 6) [CRLMP-6639/2017] "bl ij lquk x;k rFkk i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA ifjoknh dh vksj ls izLrqr dh xbZ lk{; rFkk vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk nkSjkus vuqla/kku ladfyr dh xbZ ekSf[kd ,ao nLrkosth lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k fd;k x;kA izdj.k esa vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us Lo;a us vuqla/kku esa ;g ekuk gS fd ekSds ij [kljk la[;k 46 dq,a dh tehu NksMh xbZ FkhA t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ds i= Øekad 176 fnukad 22-01-10 esa ;g Li"V mYys[k fd;k gqvk gS fd xzke ?kkVh lwjtiqjk rglhy lkaxkusj ds u;s [kljk uacj 46 iqjkus [kljk uacj 32 ,ao 33 gSaA bu [kljk uEcjksa ds dksbZ bdjkjukek miyC/k ugha gS tcfd vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh vius vuqla/kku esa ;g ekurk gS fd [kkrsnkjku us lkslk;Vh dks tfj;s bdjkjukek mDr Hkwfe csp fn;k gS vkSj 90 ch gsrq fjdkWMZ Hkh t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k t;iqj ds ikl gSA t;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k mDr vuqla/kku ds foijhr bl i= ls ;g tkfgj dj jgk gS fd fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ bdjkjukek muds ikl ugha gSA ifjoknh dh lk{; ,ao vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dh vksj ls izLrqr fjiksVZ ls vo'; gh ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; bl [kljk uacj 46 dk fookn gS fdUrq [kkrsnkj ,ao jktLo Hkwfe vfHkys[k ls mDr Hkwfe ifjoknh ds iwoZtksa ds uke pyrh gqbZ vk jgh gSA bl Hkwfe dk [kkrsnkjku }kjk lkslk;Vh dks cspku fd;k tkuk izFke n`"V;k izrhr ugha gksrk gSA lkslk;Vh }kjk fn;s x;s iV~Vksa ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDrx.k izFke n`"V;k bl ij dCtk djuk pkgrs gSa vkSj blh mn~ns'; ls og ekSds ij x;s gSa vkSj blh dkj.k nksuksa i{kksa esa fookn gqvk gSA ifjoknh ds dq,a esa rksMQksM dh xbZ gSA fygktk] vfHk;qDrx.k dsljyky 'kekZ] izgykn jk; 'kekZ ds fo:) vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 447] 427] 504 Hkk-na-la- esa dk;Zokgh djus ds i;kZIr vk/kkj gksus ls izlaKku fy;k tkuk U;ks;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA ifjoknh dh vksj ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) ,llh@,lVh ,DV esa izlaKku fy;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fdUrq bl laca/k esa U;k;ky; bl izØe ij dksbZ Bksl lk{; vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) ugha ikrk gSA fygktk] dsoy ek= vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 447] 427] 504 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa vfHk;qDrx.k dsljyky 'kekZ] izgykn jk; 'kekZ ds fo:) izlaKku fy;k tkrk gSA izdj.k ntZ jftLVj fu;fer QkStnkjh gksA mDr izdj.k dh iSjoh ifjoknh i{k Lo;a djsxkA ifjoknh dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og le; ij xokg lwph ,ao ryokuk is'k djsA ifjoknh dh vksj ls ryckuk ,ao xokg lwph is'k gksus ij vfHk;qDrx.k dks tfj;s lEeu ryc fd;k tkosA i=koyh rych eqyfteku esa fnukad 16-1-17 dks is'k gksA."
Mr. B.L. Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that wrong findings of fact have been recorded by the revisional Court below. The revisional Court below, while accepting the revision, noted that the Investigating Officer has come to a conclusion that the dispute is civil in nature, and held as under :-
"izdj.k esa ifjoknh dk vk{ksi ;g Fkk fd vfHk;qDrx.k us mldh Hkwfe [kljk la[;k 46 ¼dq,a ds :i esa½ ij vfrØe.k djrs gq, mlesa rksMQksM dh vkSj viuh nhokj cuk yh] lkFk gh tkfrxr xkyh xykSp djds viekfur fd;kA iqfyl us vuqla/kku ds mijkUr eq[; :i ls ;g dgrs gq, vfUre izfrosnu izLrqr fd;k fd vfHk;qDr dks ts-Mh-,- us IykV la[;k 3 dk iV~Vk ns fn;k Fkk ftl ij 15 lkyksa ls fuekZ.k djds vfHk;qDr dkfct Fkk vkSj nwljk dqN fuekZ.k dks ysdj ifjoknh o vfHk;qDr esa fookn gqvk ftldks ysdj orZeku vfHk;qDr us Hkh ,Q-vkbZ-vkj la[;k 260@06 ntZ djok;h ftlesa bl izdj.k ds ifjoknh o vU; yksxksa dk pkyku gqvk vkSj rhljk [kljk la[;k 47 o 46 ds jdcs dks ysdj lsVyesaV foHkkx }kjk (5 of 6) [CRLMP-6639/2017] isekbZ'k esa dqN fHkUurk nf'kZr dj nh ftldks ysdj nq:Lrhdj.k dk nkok py jgk gS vkSj vfUre fu.kZ; ckdh FkkA bl n'kk esa bl LVst ij [kljk uEcj 46 dks ysdj dksbZ vfUre jk; ugh fudkyh tk ldrh FkhA mijksDr vfUre izfrosnu ftu vk/kkjksa ij izLrqr fd;k x;k gS og vk/kkj D;ksa fof/klaer ugh Fks bl lEca/k esa ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks viuk Bksl earO; vkns'k esa nsuk vko';d Fkk] ysfdu vkyksP; vkns'k dks ns[ks rks mu dkj.kksa dks ysdj ,slk dksbZ mYys[k ugh gS fd iqfyl us mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij tks vfUre izfrosnu fn;k gS og fdu otgksa ls vuqfpr Fkk] cfYd ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us mUgha c;kuksa ij fopkj djrs gq, o vk/kkj cukrs gq, izlaKku fy;k ftuesa ogh rF; izdV Fks tks /kkjk 161 na0iz0la0 ds c;kuksa esa ifjoknh o mlds xokgku us mYysf[kr fd;s FksA vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ,df=r lkexzh ls ;g rF; Hkyh Hkkafr izdV gks jgk Fkk fd izdj.k ds vfHk;qDr izgykn 'kekZ dks ts-Mh-,- dh vksj ls dqy 211-66 oxZxt dk Hkw[k.M la[;k 3 gjnso dkWyksuh t;iqj esa fn;k x;k ftldh pkSMkbZ 30 QqV o yEckbZ 63-6 QqV dh Fkh] uD'kk ekSdk tks cuk;k x;k mlds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gS fd mDr vkdkj ds Hkw[k.M ls T;knk dk dksbZ dCtk vfHk;qDr us ekSds ij fd;k gks ,slh dksbZ ldkjkRed lk{; mlesa nf'kZr ugh Fkh] ,slh n'kk esa bl LVst ij miyC/k lk{; ds ifjis{k esa ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyus dk dksbZ Bksl vk/kkj ugh Fkk fd vfHk;qDr us mls vkoafVr Hkw[k.M la[;k 3 ds iV~Vs esa mYysf[kr Hkw&Hkkx ls vf/kd ij dCtk fd;k gksA vr% /kkjk 447 ;k 427 Hkk0na0la0 ds vijk/kksa esa izlaKku ysus ds Bksl o ;Fkksfpr dkj.k miyC/k ugh Fks vkSj u gh vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ ls vlgefr dk dksbZ Bksl dkj.k ;ksX; eftLVªsV }kjk fn;k x;kA vr% /kkjk 427] 447] 504 Hkk0na0la0 ds vijk/kksa esa fy;k x;k izlaKku vkns'k mijksDr foospu ds ifjis{k esa vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA tgka rd /kkjk 3 vuqlwfpr tkfr tutkfr vf/kfu;e ds vijk/k ds izlaKku dk iz'u gS ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us mDr vijk/k esa izlaKku ysus ds dksbZ vk/kkj miyC/k ugh ekus gS blfy, mDr fu"d"kZ esa gLr{ksi ds dksbZ vk/kkj ugh gS D;ksafd vUrr% /kkjk 447] 427 Hkk0na0la0 ds xBu ds rRoksa dh fo/kekurk bl U;k;ky; us ugh ekuh gSA ifj.kker% vkyksP; vkns'k vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA."
The prime reason given by the revisional Court below is that from last fifteen years, as per the Investigating Officer, the accused was in possession of the land. The Court noted that so far Khasra Nos.46 and 47 are concerned, there is a discrepancy in the demarcation carried by the Settlement Department. The Court noted that the application for correction of the revenue record is pending. The Court noted that the size of the plot of the society is 30' wide and is having length of 63.6 feet.
There is no evidence that the accused had taken possession of the land purchased by them beyond their share or they cultivated the same. The Court agreed with the findings given by the Investigating (6 of 6) [CRLMP-6639/2017] Officer. A litigation has to come to an end some where, on some day and time. This Court, being a third Court, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., shall not disturb the findings given by the revisional Court below as same are not perverse. The order passed by the revisional Court below cannot be termed perfunctory. No patent illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the revisional Court below is discernible. The view formulated by the revisional Court below is one view which is possible on the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court will not cause interference.
This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that in the present case, litigation was initiated in the year, 2006 and from last twelve years the parties are litigating in one form or another. Let litigation be given decent burial as neither on law nor on merits there is anything and let the matter rest in peace.
Consequently, both these petitions are dismissed without causing any interference.
Let a copy of this order be placed in the connected file.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J ashok Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)