Back
2019 Supreme(Gau) 452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.
Md. Abdul Salam and others - Appellants
Versus
Indra Deo Harijan and others - Respondents
Crl.Rev.P. 41 of 2010 and Crl.Rev.P. 439 of 2009
Decided On : 09-04-2019
For the Appellant :Mr. Inam Uddin, Advocate., Mr. P. D. Nair, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. P. D. Nair. Advocate., Mr. Inam Uddin. Advocate, Mr. D.C. Borah. Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise can resolve a dispute and affect the entitlement to seized property, and the court's direction for the return of seized property must be proper.
Headnote:
Compromise - Criminal Case - IPC 420/406/34 - The court discussed the compromise between the parties and the distribution of buffalos, as well as the seizure and return of buffalos. The key legal provisions discussed include the compromise petition, the obligations of the zimmadar, and the police report regarding the seizure of buffalos.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint regarding the misappropriation of buffalos, a compromise between the parties, and subsequent disputes over the seized buffalos. The court analyzed the compromise, the obligations of the zimmadar, and the police report regarding the seizure of buffalos.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise petition indicated the distribution of buffalos and that the zimmadar was not obligated to return the buffalos as directed by the appellate court. It also found that the direction of the trial court for the return of seized buffalos was not proper.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement to seized buffalos based on the compromise, the obligations of the zimmadar, and the propriety of the court's direction for the return of buffalos.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compromise resolved the dispute over the buffalos and that the zimmadar was not obligated to return the buffalos. It also found that the trial court's direction for the return of seized buffalos was not proper.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order of the appellate court, determining that the complainant was not entitled to any seized buffalos and the zimmadar was not obligated to return the buffalos as directed by the appellate court.
JUDGMENT :
1. Both the Revision Petitions are taken up together for disposal as in both petitions challenge have been made against the common judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Nagaon, in Criminal Appeal No.11(N)/2008 dated 07.09.2009.
2. Briefly stated, one Md. Abdul Salam lodged a complaint which was registered as C.R. Case No.1981/99, in the Court of learned SDJM, Nagaon with regard to mis-appropriation of 22 buffalos, by accused persons namely Abdul Gafur, Mujibur Rahman and Habibur Rahman. The said case was registered u/s.420/06/506/34 IPC and while the case was at the hearing stage, both the parties entered into a compromise, which is as follows:
"We, the complainant and the accused persons named hereinabove both beg to humbly submit that the case referred to above was among us brothers the prominent persons of our village partitioned our paternal properties as well as all the movable and immovable properties purchased by us among us three brothers. We the parties took delivery of our respective shares of the properties. There is no property left for partitioning among us brothers and we have accepted the parties of the properties as affected by the public. We shall never indulge in any sort of quarrel or dispute over any part of our parental and purchased properties in the future. Nor shall be raised any sort of objection what so ever. Even if any such objection is ever raised, such objections shall be deemed null and void. We the parties do hereby pledge to live as brothers in future and shall never indulge in any quarrels.
We, therefore, request you to take cognizance of these deed of compromise and dismiss the instant suit and oblige.
Your truly
19-08-2000.
List of properties/articles received in the shares of both the parties:
1. Complainant Abdul Salam and his brother Ibrahim Ali got in their shares 17 (seventeen) Buffalos (Purchase and paternal) including both big and small ones.
2. Accd. Abdul Gafur got in his shares 10 (ten) buffalos (Paternal) including both big and small.
3. Thereafter the Court on the basis of such compromise, passed the order dated 19.08.2000, in the C.R. Case No.1981/99, which reads as follows:
"Complainant present. Accused are also present. Heard both sides Ld. Advocates in the matter of disputed buffalos and also in respect of compromise.
The petitioner’s case in brief is that after the death of his father some buffalos of deceased father were distributed among five brothers of complainant. Complainant received 8 of them, later in the year 1984 along with his brother Ibrahim Ali he purchased another 24 numbers of buffalos from the accused a person Pram Ch. Adhikari. After some years on request of his brother/accused Abdul Gafar, complainant gave all his buffalos to the custody of his brother on good faith that he would look after the same. But after sometimes complainant came to know that his brother started to sell the buffalos which were in the custody of him. And when complainant asked about the selling of buffalos his brother along with other accused tried to assault him and also gave threatening with dire consequences. In this way accused cheated him by taking buffalos from him with an intention to sell them. And finding no other alternative complaint had instituted this case against accuseds.
Accuseds namely Abdul Gafar, Mazibur Rahman, Habibur Rahman duly appeared before the Court and they were allowed to go on Court bail. At the time of evidence, Complainant has examined two witnesses. Defence examined none. From the evidence of witnesses it seems that the villagers has settled the dispute and distributed the buffalos equally to all brothers. And both the parties are satisfied on that settlement. It also came to notice of the Court that they are living happily with good understanding.
I have gone through the statement of accused. They expressed that complainant is their own brother and uncle and they have settled the dispute outside of the Co
