Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Prahlad Meena - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5369 of 2017, 6639 of 2017
Decided On : 13-07-2018
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - SECTIONS 3(i)(iv), (v) AND (viii) - COGNIZANCE - REVISION - FACTUAL DISPUTE - POSSESSION OF LAND - CIVIL DISPUTE - PERVERSE FINDING - INTERFERENCE BY HIGHER COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an FIR alleging offences under Sections 427, 447, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(iv), (v), and (viii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Investigating Officer submitted a final report in negative form, absolving the accused of the offences. The petitioner filed a protest petition, which was dismissed by the Magistrate. The petitioner filed a revision petition, which was remanded back to the Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 447, 427, and 504 IPC but not under the Act. The petitioner filed another revision petition, which was accepted by the revisional court, setting aside the order of cognizance. The petitioner challenged the revisional court's order under Section 482 CrPC.
Finding of the Court:
The revisional court below had noted that the dispute between the parties was civil in nature and that the accused had been in possession of the land for the last fifteen years. The court also noted that there was a discrepancy in the demarcation of the land carried out by the Settlement Department and that an application for correction of the revenue record was pending. The court agreed with the findings of the Investigating Officer and concluded that there was no evidence that the accused had taken possession of the land beyond their share or cultivated the same.
Issues: 1. Whether the revisional court below erred in setting aside the order of cognizance passed by the Magistrate? 2. Whether the findings of the revisional court below were perverse?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the revisional court below had not committed any patent illegality or infirmity in setting aside the order of cognizance. The court noted that the view formulated by the revisional court below was one view which was possible on the facts and circumstances of the case and that it would not cause interference. 2. The High Court held that the findings of the revisional court below were not perverse. The court noted that the revisional court below had considered the evidence on record and had come to a reasonable conclusion.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed both petitions filed by the petitioner, upholding the order of the revisional court below.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
1. 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.
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 conclusion that no offence under Sections 3 (i) (iv), (v) and (viii) of the Act of 1989 was committed by the accused.
6. 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.
7. Having noted the contentions of the complainant, the trial Court too
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
