IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Narendra Singh Bhatia, S/o. Late Surjeet Singh Bhatia and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Nilesh Patel, S/o. Late Harihar Bhai Patel and Anr. - Respondents
CRMP No. 377 of 2015
Decided On : 01-11-2021
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 , 156(3) and 200 - Disputed Land - Possession - Whether an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., directing Police to investigate into matter is tenable along with complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before registration of complaint – Held, reverting back to present case in hand, respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for investigation with regard to authenticity of documents by sending it to handwriting expert, he has filed application for issuance of direction to investigate authenticity of documents by Police Station, which is mechanically rejected by Magistrate without considering provisions of law - Order is inconformity with law by law laid down as above, Revisional Court has not committed any material illegality or irregularity in passing impugned order warranting any interference by this court - Petition dismissed
ORDER :
1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., assailing the order dated 24-4-2015 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Revision No.13 of 2015 whereby the Revisional Court allowed the revision filed by respondent No.1 Nilesh Patel against the order dated 21-1-2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., has been dismissed. The revisional court has allowed the revision and remanded the matter to trial court for deciding the application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in accordance with law.
2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners are real brothers. The family of the petitioners are engaged in the business of coal transport since long. The petitioners have purchased a plot situated behind the plot bearing current Khasra No. 4/5 for the storage of coal. The only way to that plot was though Khasra No. 4/5 which belongs to the father of respondent No.1, late Harihar Bhai Patel. The plot bearing present Khasra No. 4/5 has been continued to be in possession and used by the petitioners. The truck and other articles were kept there and to keep a watch over the same a room was built for accommodating the Chowkidar. The land was surrounded with boundary wall with a gate in front to which Harihar Bhai Patel, who is father of respondent No.1, never objected nor he instituted any proceedings against the petitioners.
3. Learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners would submit that the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 4/5 has been continued to be in possession and used by the petitioners and other articles were kept there and to keep a watch over the same a room was built for accommodating the Chowkidar. Harihar Bhai Patel who is father of respondent No.1 never objected nor did he institute any proceedings against the petitioners for possession of the said plot. He would further submit that the factum of possession of the petitioners over the said plot was admitted by the father of respondent No.1 on 12-10-1984 and he died in September, 2012. The respondent No.1, who claims to have acquired American citizenship, came to India a few days before death of his father, leaving behind his family in USA tried to usurp the possession of the plot forcibly but having failed to do so he submitted a false complaint on 16-10-2012 that the petitioners have trespassed over the land and, therefore, he wanted to restore his possession by ousting the petitioners. The police made inquiries and having found that the complaint is not true, they did not take any action, thereafter, respondent No.1 filed another complaint on 3-3-2013 before the Incharge of Police Station, Rajnandgaon and again using his political influence he made a false complaint to the Chief Minister of the State and got it forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon to inquire into the matter vide letter dated 4-3- 2013. Under the political pressure by respondent No.1, Incharge, Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, filed Istegasa under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., arraying the respondent No.1 as party No.1 and the petitioner No.1 as party No.2 on 7-1-2014 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajnandgaon. The preliminary order was passed and thereafter both parties have filed their respective claims and documents in support of their documents. It has been further contented that the Sub Divisional Magistrate found that no order of restoring of possession of lad of respondent No.1 can be passed and proceeding is untenable and, therefore, the proceedings were dropped by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajnandgaon. Thereafter, respondent No.1 has filed a complaint on the basis of which FIR of Crime No. 691 of 2013 was registered on 31-8-2013. Charge sheet against the petitioner No.1 was filed on 28-12-2013 and the case is pending as criminal case No. 186 of 2014. Thereafter,
The court clarified that a Magistrate's order for police investigation under Section 156(3) does not constitute taking cognizance of an offence, allowing for subsequent proceedings under the appropri....
Powers to Investigate - Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII, under the caption : “Information to the Police and their powers to investigate. The power to order police investigation under Section 156....
A Magistrate cannot register a subsequent complaint under Section 200 CrPC based on the same facts after a previous complaint has been quashed, as it exceeds jurisdiction.
The word “cognizance” has not been defined under Cr.P.C. To unveil the legal quandary, a brief survey of 'Cognizance' would illuminate everything, clearing all concepts, therefore, this Court is refe....
Direction for Police Investigation – Option to direct registration of case and its investigation by police should be exercised where some “investigation” is required, which is of a nature that is not....
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to determine whether to direct an investigation, particularly in civil disputes masquerading as criminal matters.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.