High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 02 CHH CK 0322

Matai @ Rahmat Ulla vs Kausar Ali

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 19 February 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Goutam Bhaduri, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (CRMP) No. 417 Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 270 words

Goutam Bhaduri, J

1.

Heard.

2.

The present petition is against the order dated 02/11/2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Revision

No. 56/2018, whereby the order dated 30/07/2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Korba (C.G.) dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner, was

affirmed.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Kausar Ali has encroached upon the part of the land belonging to the petitioner by

force and thereby has committed the offence. He further submits that when the complaint was filed the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction and

appreciate the evidence of the complainant witness.

4.

Perusal of the order of the revisional Court would show that the petitioner and the respondent are uncle and nephew and they were in dispute over

certain part of the land. The order impugned reflects that the complainant has failed to produce any evidence or witness to establish the fact that the

respondent has encroached and demolish the part of the wall which belonged to the petitioner. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge would show

that the complaint and the submissions are too vague and therefore, did not take any cognizance under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and affirmed the

order of the trial Court, whereby the complaint was dismissed. Considering such finding, it appears that as no statement is also before this court to

appreciate this facts, this court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction to interfere with such finding of fact in exercise of powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

5.

This petition has no merit it is accordingly dismissed.