IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Cr. Revision No.: 4005 of 2013. Date of decision: 22.08.2013.
Amar Dutt & others Versus Babli Devi
Time Bar - Land Dispute - H.P. Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1974 - Indian Penal Code, Section 447, 427, 506, 379 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(v)(vi)(xv)
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a member of the scheduled caste community, filed a complaint regarding a land dispute that occurred in 2000. The police initially did not take any action, and a private complaint was filed in 2007. The trial court took cognizance of the offences in 2011, leading to a legal challenge on the grounds of time bar.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in taking cognizance was justified due to the continuing nature of the offence and the lack of police action. The court also cited legal provisions and judgments to support its decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complaint, filed several years after the incident, was time-barred under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the continuing nature of the offence and the lack of police action justified the delay in taking cognizance, citing relevant legal provisions and precedents.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the orders of the trial court to proceed with the case.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J The only question, needs adjudication in this petition, is that the complaint of which cognizance has been taken by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rampur, was time barred and as such the impugned order dated 27.5.2013 is not legally and factually sustainable.
2. Complainant Smt. Babli Devi wife of Ram Lal is a member of scheduled caste community. On 6.8.1975, the government had sanctioned Nautor land, measuring 5 Bighas, bearing Khasra No.296/2, situate in village Konthroo, Tehsil KUmarsain, District Shimla, under H.P. Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1974, in the name of her father-in-law Shri Parma Nand. After its allotment, he raised construction of a single storeyed house thereon. The petitioners (accused persons in the trial Court) fenced the said land with barbed wire in a manner obstructing thereby the path being used by them to have access to their house, in the absence of her husband, who is a driver by profession. On 31.1.2000, when she objected to such fencing of land by the accused- petitioners, she alongwith her children as well as father-in-law and mother-in-law, was beaten up mercilessly. Matter was reported to the police of Police Post, Narkanda on 2.2.2000, after her husband returned to house and Rapat No.8 to this effect was entered in the Rojnamcha. The police allegedly neither registered the case against the accused-petitioners nor took any action against them. It has led in making a complaint dated Nil through Shri B.N. Mehta, Advocate, to His Excellency the Governor of Himachal Pradesh.
3. Consequent upon the direction issued to the police on the aforesaid complaint, FIR No.10/06 was registered under Sections 447, 427, 506, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (v)(vi) and (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Police filed cancellation report. The same, however, was not accepted by the Court below and the matter rather was sent back to SDPO, Rampur for conducting re-investigation vide order dated 15.6.2007. In the meanwhile, a complaint also came to be instituted by the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P.C. before learned judicial Magistrate below on 22.12.2007. Pending submission of the report by the police, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506, 379, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(vi) (xv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused persons vide order dated 1.7.2008. Against the said order, the accused-petitioners preferred Cr. MMO No.155/2009 before this Court, which was disposed of with the following directions:
“ The complaint was filed in the Court on 22nd December, 2007 with respect to the incident which took place in the year 2000. At that time, the matter was still pending investigation. While conducting the enquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Court despite coming to its notice conveniently ignored the provisions of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He did not call for the investigation report for consideration while considering the matter for issuing the process. Therefore, in these circumstances the impugned order dated 1st July, 2008 (Annexure P-6) is hereby quashed and set aside and it is directed that the learned trial Court shall call for the report of the investigation and thereafter hear the learned counsel for the complainant and on going through the evidence recorded by him and also after the police report shall pass the appropriate orders in the matter, as he deems fit under the law.”
4.In the light of the directions issued by the High Court, learned Magistrate below had reconsidered the matter afresh and passed the order dated 14.10.2011 to proceed further against the accused persons for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 147, 447, 427, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
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.