##PAGE1##

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Criminal Revision No. 3654 of 2016 (O&M)

Reserved On: 02.02.2026

Pronounced On: 05.02.2026

Jagbir Singh alias Jaibir Singh

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Savitri

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present: Mr. S.K.Hooda, Advocate

for the petitioner(s).

Mr.Jitender K. Sehrawat, Advocate

Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. Aggrieved of the order dated 14.07.2016, hereinafter being

referred to as “the impugned order” only, the instant revision petition has

been filed by virtue of above said order the learned trial Court has served

charge sheet upon the petitioner/accused, hereinafter being referred to as

“petitioner” only, for the commission of offence punishable under Section

3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter being referred to as “the SC&ST Act” only

and Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground

that the above said charge-sheet is vague and the order of framing of charge-

sheet has been passed without application of judicial mind. According to

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2026.02.08 14:14

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Criminal Revision No. 3654 of 2016 (O&M) 2

petitioner, the material available on record and the arguments addressed on

behalf of petitioner have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial

Court and merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions the charge-

sheet has been framed.

3. In nut-sell, the facts emerging from the record are that in a

complaint moved by the complainant/respondent, hereinafter being referred

to as “respondent” only, the petitioner was summoned as an accused to face

trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(iv) of the

SC&ST Act and Section 427 IPC. In the above mentioned case, the

petitioner is on bail and the learned trial Court, by virtue of impugned order,

has issued an order for framing of charge against the petitioner.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the impugned

order is an outcome of non-application of judicial mind, and that the learned

trial Court has ignored the relevant law as well as the facts & circumstances

related to the instant case. It has been further contended by learned counsel

for the petitioner that the allegations contained in the complaint are with

regard to dispossession of respondent by the petitioner from a piece of

agricultural land. With regard to above, it has been pointed out by learned

counsel for the petitioner that the above mentioned land since ever has been

in possession of the petitioner and therefore, the allegations with regard to

forcible dispossession of respondent by the petitioner are absolutely false.

6. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner

that earlier the land belonged to the petitioner who was duly recorded so in

the revenue record. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2026.02.08 14:14

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Criminal Revision No. 3654 of 2016 (O&M) 3

jamabandi for the year 1975-76 the name of petitioner was duly recorded as

owner in possession of the disputed land but subsequently in an illegal

manner a portion of land belonging to the petitioner was declared surplus by

the government agencies and the name of petitioner was replaced with the

name of Government of Haryana. As per learned counsel for the petitioner,

despite the above mentioned change in the entry, in the revenue record, the

possession of petitioner was never disturbed and the petitioner continued to

enjoy possession thereof.

7. The learned counsel for petitioner has also argued that the claim

of complainant is that the above mentioned land was allotted to the father of

respondent and on payment of requisite money she had entered into

possession of the same with the help of revenue authorities.