Back
2003 (2) Crimes 33
Rajasthan High Court
H.R. Panwar, J.
Sagat Singh & Ors. —Petitioners
versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. —Non-petitioners
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 604/1997
Decided on 17-12-2002
For the Petitioners:Mr. K.S. Rathore, Advocate.
For the Non-petitioners No. 2:Mr. Dinesh Sharma and Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. A.R. Nikkub, P.P.
Important Point
Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when non-inter-ference may result in manifest injustice or there is evident abuse of process of Court.
Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Inherent power of High Court — Has to be exercised sparingly and with circum-spection only when non-interference may result in manifest injustice or when there is apparent abuse of process of court.
Held: This Court would normally act on the principle that powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. should be exer-cised sparingly and with circumspection only when non-interference may result in manifest injustice or when there is evident abuse of the process of court. It is settled law that inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is meant to prevent failure of justice or abuse of the process of court. The Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is not akin to exercise of revisi-onary jurisdiction and, therefore, until it is established on record that manifest injustice would be occasioned in the event of non-interference or that there is apparent abuse of the process of court this Court would not interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Thus exercise of inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by this Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions being available under the Code of Criminal Procedure to this Court to prevent abuse of the process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (Para 7)
(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Petition chall-enging order where by Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 447, 435/149 IPC — Case was registered on complaint of non-petitioner No. 2 — Record sho-wed that non-petitioner had sold suit land to petitioner by regd. sale deed and civil suit for cancellation of sale deed filed was compromised by withdrawal of claim — Complainant non-petitioner was neither in posse-ssion of land nor had title — Criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed. (Para 8)
Result: Petition allowed.
Judgment
H.R. Panwar, J.— By this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24-4-1997 passed by the learned Judl. Magistrate, Ist Class, District Jodhpur whereby the learned Judl. Magistrate took cogni-zance of offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 435 read with Sec-tion 149, I.P.C. against the petitioners.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned dated 24-4-1997 and the relevant material filed by the police before the Court below.
3. On 24-9-1996, Police Station Jhanwar (District Jodhpur) registered first information report No. 146 for offences under Sections 143, 447 and 435, I.P.C. on the basis of statement of non-petitioner No. 2 Purkharam — complainant. It was alleged that the complainant is in possessions of agricultural field bearing khasra No. 926, measuring 14 bigha. It was further alleged that in the said field crop was standing and it has been taken away by the present petitioners. However, the case of the petitioners is that by a registered sale deed dated 27-9-1994 non-petitioner No. 2 Purkharam sold the land measuring 14 bigha in Khasra No. 926 alongwith agricultural land comprised in khasra 378 and 317, measuring 13 bigha in favour of present petitioner No. 14 Jagdish s/o Magraj Mahajan for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. A certified copy of the regis-tered sale-deed Ex.-15 is placed on record. The said sale-deed was regis-tered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur on 29-9-1994. The recital of the said sale-deed states in clear terms that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as sale con-sideration was received by the vendee Purkharam (non-petitioner No. 2) and as such he acknowledged the receipt of the entire sale consideration and phy-sical possession of the agricultural land in question was handed over to peti-tioner No. 14 Jagdish s/o Magraj Maha-jan, the purchaser.
4. Subsequent thereto, non-peti-tioner No. 2 filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge & Chief Judl. Magistrate, Jodhpur for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 27-9-1994 and seeking possession of the land against petitioner No. 14 Jagdish s/o Magraj Mahajan and others. On 6-9-1996, the parties to that suit struck compromise and non-petitioner No. 2 (plaintiff) Purkha Ram and defendant Jagdish (present petiti-oner No. 14) filed a written compromise in the civil original suit (No. 33/95) wherein the complainant Purkha Ram categorically stated that the parties have compromised the matter and he (plaintiff Purkha Ram) did not want to prosecute the civil suit any further. In the compromise deed, he admitted the execution of the sale-deed dated 27-9-1994 and stated that since he admits the sale he does not want to seek cance-llation of the sale-deed. The plaintiff further admitted that the land in dis-pute is in cultivatory possession of Jagdish s/o Magraj Mahajan — the present petitioner No. 14. By order dated 10-9-1996, Annex.- 19 on the record, the trial Court verified the compromise and dismissed the suit filed by non-petitioner Purkha Ram.
5. The land in dispute was muta-ted in favour of petitioner No. 14 vide Annex.- 20 on 07-2-1995. The revenue record also shows that non-petitioner No. 2 was not in possession of the land in question from 7-2-1995 or from the date of the sale. The entire revenue record shows cultivatory possession of petitioners No. 14 Jagdish and the other agriculturists i.e., the present petitioners besides the petitioner No. 14 Jagdish have been cultivating the land in question at the instance of petitioner No. 14. A civil suit was also filed by petitioner No. 14 against non-petitioner Purkharam for permanent injunction; and, alongwith the suit for permanent injunction an application of temporary under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed before the S.D.O., Jodhpur. In the presence of and after hearing non-petitioner No. 2 who was defendant therein, the learned S.D.O. vide order dated 11-7-1996 prima facie found the pe
