IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
G. Luwangjao Kabui - Petitioners
Versus
State of Manipur Represented by the Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/Commissioner (Home) and Others - Respondents
WP(C) No. 328 of 2020
Decided On : 21-08-2020
FIR Registration - Land Dispute - Section 155 Cr.P.C. - Section 149 Cr.P.C. - Abuse of Process of Law - Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction to register an FIR against accused persons who threatened and prevented him from entering his land. The respondent police failed to register the FIR citing a pending civil suit between the parties and the non-cognizable nature of the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal offense was an abuse of process of law. It held that the remedy for non-registration of FIR lies with the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Issues: Ownership dispute over land, non-cognizable nature of the complaint, abuse of process of law, maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: Filing a criminal complaint for settling a civil dispute is an abuse of process of law. The remedy for non-registration of FIR lies with the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction on the respondents to take up the complaints submitted by him and to register the First Information Report against the accused persons.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the land measuring an extent of 0.7480 hectare situated at No. 17, Chaobok Village, Thoubal District in Dag No. 2115 was inherited from his father and the revenue records were mutated in his name. After inheriting, the petitioner and his family members were physically possessed of the said land peacefully. While so, on 27.07.2016, some persons who are from the majority Muslim community came with deadly weapons and was trying to enter into the said land and they have also threatened by saying that the whole family of the petitioner would be killed, if they enter into the said agricultural land. Fearing the threat, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Lilong Police Station. Since, the Officer-in-charge, Lilong Police Station failed to consider the complaint, the petitioner has submitted complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 05.10.2016 requesting to take action. Despite receipt of the complaints, the respondent police failed to register the FIR, nor taken action against the persons who threatened him and his family members and also prevented them from entering in the said land.
3. Further case of the petitioner is that taking advantage of the non-registration of the FIR, the accused persons again entered into the land and destroyed the paddy field and they have also entered into the fish farm and caught fish by using fish nets. Again on 25.03.2020, when the petitioner and his family members were clearing the weeds in the fishing farm, the said persons along with some unknown persons with mask and cap came with deadly weapons started shooting with double barrel rifles. Being afraid, the petitioner and his family members ran out from the fish farm to save their lives. Immediately, on the same day, the petitioner made another complaint to the Officer-in-charge, Lilong Police Station against the said persons. Despite the receipt of the said complaint, the respondent police have not registered the FIR against the said persons. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition to direct the respondents to register the FIR.
4. Residing the writ petition, the fourth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the land in question was a disputed land and both sides claiming ownership of the said land. In fact, the petitioner has failed to give any prima facie evidence about the contents that have been written in the complaint. It is stated that a civil suit is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Thoubal in O.S. No. 52 of 2016. Since the offence alleged by the petitioner is non-cognizable, the respondent police followed the provision of Section 155 Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the land in Dag No. 2115 measuring an extent of 0.7480 hectare situated at No. 17-Chaobok Village and he is cultivating the said land by raising paddy. While so, on 27.07.2016, some persons who are stated to belong to Muslim community came with deadly weapons and prevented the petitioner from entering or doing his agricultural work in the said land. He would submit that since the said persons threatened the petitioner, he has lodged a complaint before the fourth respondent. Since the fourth respondent failed to register FIR, the petitioner lodged another complaint before the third respondent.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that taking advantage of the non-registration of the FIR by the respondent police, the accused persons again entered into the paddy field and destroyed the same and they have also caught fish in the fish farm by using fishing net.
7. The learned counsel next submitted that on 25.03.2020 when the petitioner and his family members wer
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.