2023 0 Supreme(HP) 251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Usha Devi and others - Petitioners
Vs.
Mohar Singh - Respondent
Cr.MMO No. 653 of 2019
Decided On : 16-05-2023
Point of Law: It is well settled that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by High Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 427, 447, 147, 149, 434, 504, 506, (II), 34 - Recording precharge evidence - Restoration of boundary marks - Threat to kill - Petitioners approached Court for quashing impugned order passed wherein after recording preliminary as well as precharge evidence, Magistrate has concluded that there were sufficient grounds to frame charges against accused persons (petitioners) for commission of offence – Allegations are to be evaluated by trial Court on completion of trial, by taking into consideration material placed before it - Para 19.
Finding of the Court :
Court is of considered opinion that it is not a case where there is no sufficient material to frame charge against petitioners, at least under Section 506 IPC at this stage - Needless to say, it does not mean that Court has concluded that petitioners have committed offence under Section 506 IPC - Such allegations are to be evaluated by trial Court on completion of trial, by taking into consideration material placed before it - At this stage, Court has considered material only for purpose as to whether there is sufficient material to continue trial or for want of insufficient material trial deserves to be closed by quashing impugned order, as prayed.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Act Referred :CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.427, S.447, S.147, S.149, S.434, S.504, S.506(ii), S.34, S.506
Cases Referred:Advocate Appeared :For the Petitioner : Mr.H.K.S. Thakur, Adv.For the Respondent : Mr.Chander Shekhar Sharma, Adv..
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioners have approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing impugned order dated 29.8.2019, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in Private Complaint No. 39-1 of 2013, wherein. after recording preliminary as well as precharge evidence, the Magistrate has concluded that there were sufficient grounds to frame charges against the accused persons (petitioners) for commission of offence punishable under Section 434 and 506 (II) of read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to complaint preferred by respondent, on 21.12.2011, land of respondent was demarcated and boundary marks were fixed by the Local Commissioner, which were uprooted by one Champa Devi W/o Hans Raj on 1.4.2012, regarding which separate complaint has been filed against Champa Devi, which is pending adjudication before the Magistrate. As per complaint, respondent applied for restoration of boundary marks and Local Commissioner came on spot on 23.1.2013 and restored the boundary marks already fixed by him on 21.12.2011.
3. It is further allegation in the complaint that on 11.3.2013 at about 1:00 P.M. boundary marks were restored by the Local Commissioner in presence of complainant and accused persons and other witnesses, but petitioners with common intention, forcibly entered into the land of complainant and with aggressive behavior threw away boundary marks fixed by the Local Commissioner as well as (gainti) Pickaxe and started quarreling with complainant and pushed and beat complainant with threat to kill him in future. As per complaint, respondent-complainant approached the Police by visiting Police Station Talai, who recorded the complaint, but did not take any action, compelling the respondent to file private complaint dated 12.4.2012, i.e. present complaint under Sections 427, 447, 147, 149, 434, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. In preliminary evidence, respondent-complainant Mohar Singh appeared as CW-1 and stated that after some time of fixing of boundary marks on 21.4.2012, Champa Devi had removed some of boundary marks and thereafter other accused also removed the boundary marks. After that Local Commissioner came on the spot on 23.1.2013 in compliance of order passed by SDO (Civil) for fixing boundary marks, but petitioners flatly refused to assent for fixing boundary marks and for a considerable long time they exchanged hot arguments. Thereafter, on 11.3.2013 at noon, Local Commissioner again tried to fix the boundary marks, but petitioners came on the spot aggressively and removed the boundary marks so fixed by Local Commissioner and started quarreling with threat to kill respondent. This time also, despite lodging complaint with the Police, no action was taken which caused the respondent to file private complaint.
5. CW-2 Prem Singh retired Consolidation Officer, appointed as Local Commissioner by Tehsildar to demarcate and fix the boundary marks re-iterated the fact of fixing of boundary marks on 21.11.2012 and removal thereof notic
Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas