AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard both sides.
This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for
quashing the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by Sri Ashutosh Rai,
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in Trial no.
2341 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case no. 2424-C of 2012
whereunder the petitioners along with three others were summoned to
face the trial for the offence under Sections 147, 427, 379 and 504 of
the IPC.
The facts, in brief, is that the O.P. no. 2 filed a complaint case
on the file of C.J.M. Bettiah, West Champaran, alleging inter alia that
on 24.10.2012 at about 05:00 P.M. when he along with his family
members was at his house, all the petitioners along with few others
came at his door on tractor and jeep and asked the O.P. no. 2 to leave
the house and land in favour of Shriniwas Tiwary and his family
members. The O.P. no. 2 refused to do so as he along with his family
members were residing in the house since the time of their ancestor.
Thereafter, on the order of the then Circle Officer, all the petitioners
and co-accuseds looted away two pumps sets, fodder cutting machine,
cultivator, two wooden beams, and four bags of mustard and also
demolished his house. The matter was inquired under Section 202 of
the Cr.P.C. and the court below finding prima facie case, took
cognizance of offence as stated above. The cognizance order was
challenged by filing Criminal Revision no. 147 of 2013 which after
hearing both sides, was dismissed. The petitioners have prayed to set
aside the said order taking cognizance.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a matter
of fact, on 24.12.2012 the informant and his family members armed
with deadly weapons came at the door of the petitioners with a tractor
laden with different articles and kept the tractor, tailor and other
articles in front of the house of the petitioners. They entered into the
house of the petitioners and assaulted them in respect of which co-
accused Nagendra Tiwari lodged Loriya P.S. Case no. 173 of 2012
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 448, 384, 386
and 380 of the I.P.C. In the said occurrence, as many as five persons
sustained injuries. The learned counsel referred Annexures-4 and 5 of
this application to show that there is bona fide land dispute between
the parties. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in order to
maintain law and order had deputed Block Development Officer to
visit at the place of occurrence for maintaining peace. The D.C.L.R.
in Case no. 54/12-13 has declared title and interest of Shriniwas
Tiwari (one of the co-accused). So in view of civil dispute between
the parties, the criminal prosecution of these petitioners is bad and not
sustainable in law.
The learned counsel for the O.P. no. 2 as well as A.P.P.
opposed the prayer. They would submit that the house standing over
the land in question was coming in possession of the O.P. no. 2 and
his family members since the time of their ancestor and so they had
right to possess the same unless evicted through the process of the
court. The petitioners had taken law and forcibly remove the
household articles of O.P. no. 2 for which the court below has rightly
taken cognizance of offence.
On perusal of complaint petition as well as annexures available
on record, I find that the complainant O.P. no. 2 has asserted that he
along with his family members was residing in the house standing
over the land in dispute. The complainant in his S.A. and witnesses
examined on his behalf have stated that on the date of occurrence, all
these petitioners armed with deadly weapon came at his door. They
assaulted the complainant and his family members and also took away
his household articles. The learned Magistrate after going through the
evidence recorded during inquiry, found prima facie case for the
offence and summoned the petitioners to face the trial. The learned
Sessions Judge while dismissing the revision of these petitioners has
also examined the materials on record. The petitioners will have
opportunity to put his defence set out in the counter case at the time of
trial.
In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any merit
in the Cr. Misc. application. Accordingly, this Cr. Misc. application
is dismissed.