Rama Shankar Prasad @ Ram Shankar Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors.

I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabeer Kr. Chatterjee, learned Spl.P.P. and Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2.

Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 24.06.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bokaro, in Complaint Case No. 764 of 2013 (herein after called the impugned order) whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry into the complaint under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the complainant, Rama Shankar Prasad posed himself to be Honorary Secretary of Aadarsh Cooperative House Construction Society Ltd., Bandhgora (registered society under Bihar Co-operative Societies Act). It is alleged that the object of the above society is to achieve the target to provide residential plots to its members for construction of their house. As such, the society started purchasing the land since the year 1984, in course thereof they had purchased the lands of Plot No.5 and 15 of village Bandhgora through registered sale deed from the Raiyats. It is alleged that in spite of decree passed by the Civil Court in favour of Raiyats, the Officials of the Forest Department lodged a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., which was also decided against the Forest Department, not only this a land encroachment case vide BPL Case No. 19/1988-89 filed by the Forest Department against the said society was also dismissed with a finding that the land in question was a raiyati land and not a public land. The Forest Department also got the land under proceeding attached under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C., which was also challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in Cr. Revision No. 27/1990 (R) whereby the above proceedings were quashed and revision was allowed. It is further alleged that in spite of repeated decisions and judicial pronouncements made up to the Hon’ble High Court, the Forest Department without having any right, title, interest and possession over the disputed land are continuously laying a false claim by launching several criminal proceedings. It is further alleged that since the dispute was settled by the court of competent jurisdiction in favour of the society holding that they have purchased Plot No. 5 and 15 of Mauza Bandhgora by rightful owners of the land and came into peaceful possession stepping into the shoes of their vendor having full right, title, interest and possession. It is further alleged that on 04.06.2013, while the society was carrying out construction work for marketing complex through the contractor, the accused persons armed with lathi, iron rod over the land in question and started abusing the labourers, who were engaged in construction work and assaulted them with fists and slaps and also snatched away their Belcha and other instruments and demolish the constructed wall as well as materials stored for construction work. It is further alleged that from the contractor Sri Banke Lal they took away Rs.250/- and threatened that no construction work can be carried forward unless the complainant start negotiation with the concerned D.F.O. The complainant also informed the above incident to Officer-in-charge, Sector XII Police Station through letter No.41 dated 04.06.2013 against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 9, but no action was taken by the police, rather on 12.06.2013, the accused persons (opposite party Nos.2 to 9) again came over the site on two vehicles and started demolishing the constructed building. Upon protest against such illegal activities, the accused persons started abusing and assaulting them. The complainant and the chairman of the society after receipt of information about the incident came there and disclosed about the judgments passed up to the High Court, but the accused persons very rudely said that they don’t follow the decisions of others. They have own laws and after demolishing part of the building took away Kudal, Belcha, Gamla, Khanti etc. and caused loss of more than Rs.25,000/- to the society. The matter was reported to police on the same day, but of no effect, as such the complainant waiting for almost a month, when no action was taken by the Officer-in-charge of Sector XII Police Station, lodged this Complaint Case No. 764 of 2013 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, which has been dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2014 and assailed in this revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question is a khatiyani land recorded in the name of Mahtha Khatiyan since the year 1925. The original Khatiyan of 1908 shows in the name of Bidyadhar Mahatha and 8 others, which was never validly declared as protected forest land under the provisions of either the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947 or the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Firstly, the land was notified as a private protected forest under Section 14 of the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947 vide notification No. C.P.F. 10140/52-602 (R) dated 04.02.1953. This notification was challenged by the Raiyat by filing Title Suit No. 140 of 1954 before the learned Munsiff Court, Purulia and vide judgment dated 30.07.1956, the claim of the Raiyat was allowed quashing the said notification. Secondly, the land was against subjected to a preliminary notification under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 for a period of 30 years vide notification No. C/F 17014/58-1429-R dated 27.05.1958, which did not affect the existing rights of the Raiyats over the entire land. Moreover, the statutory requirements under Sections 5A and 6 of the Act were never complied with and consequently, the land was never legally constituted as private protected forest. Therefore, after conducting enquiry and taking report from Settlement Officer, the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhanbad, released the said land along with other village lands vide office order No.2827 dated 16.09.1966, thereafter, the Revenue Department was directed for realization of rent in respect of the released land, which clearly establishes that the land was treated as raiyati/released land and not as forest land. It is further submitted that in spite of above settled position in respect of land in question, the Forest Department continued initiating various proceedings civil and criminal against the society, therefore, society was constrained to file C.W.J.C. No. 1232 of 1993 against the Forest Department, wherein passing the order the Hon’ble High Court observed that the aggrieved party may approach the competent civil court for declaration of right, title possession and restoration of possession, if permissible under law. Thereafter, Forest Department itself approach the competent civil court by instituting Title Suit No. 11 of 2005, which after due adjudication was ultimately dismissed in the year 2023, thereby strengthening the petitioner’s claim regarding the nature, status, right, title, interest and possession over the land in question. It is further submitted that against the dismissal of above suit the Forest Department preferred First Appeal No. 13 of 2024 before the Hon’ble High Court, which is still pending for adjudication. It is further submitted that even during the pendency of civil suit, Forest Department used to institute several criminal cases against the complainant causing unnecessary hardship to the petitioner and the members of the society although, several cases instituted by Forest Department were quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. It is further submitted that the present Complaint Case No. 764 of 2013 was instituted against the Officials of Forest Department for the offences under Sections 323, 447, 427, 379, 382, 440, 506, 511 read with Section 384 of the I.P.C. for the occurrence dated 04.06.2013 at 12:30 P.M. and 12.06.2013 at 04:15 P.M. with allegation that construction work of the society was going on in its market complex. The accused persons 1 to 8, on instruction and guided by accused No.9 armed with lathi and iron rod came over the land in a vehicle and forcibly entered over the land or the site of construction, abused male and female workers, who were engaged in doing the work and also assaulted them by fist and slaps snatch Kudal, Belcha etc. and demolish the constructed works and also demanded extortion money from the contractors. The learned Trial Court after conducting enquiry into the complaint has discussed the evidence of inquiry witnesses, but amongst other reasons insisted upon sanction for prosecution of the Government Officials under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., which is condition precedent for taking cognizance, therefore, recorded findings that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings against the public officers involved in this case and dismissed the complaint. The learned Trial Court failed to consider that the sanction order is not pre-requisite to be filed at the time of institution of complaint rather it may be produced during trial also, therefore, impugned order is not justified under law and is incorrect and improper and fit to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of petitioner has submitted that the civil proceeding is still pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court and matter is not concluded as regards title and possession of the parties over the disputed land. In the impugned order itself it is mentioned that the inquiry witnesses have not been able to state that the dispute of title between the parties has been finally settled and the matter is set at rest rather appeal is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court in respect of land in question, while allegations are made against the public servants of high rank officials without obtaining sanction for prosecution. The appeal is still pending in respect of title suit instituted by the forest department, therefore, the very genesis and the claim of the complainant regarding occurrence is doubtful and motivated with vengeance. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dismissing the complaint lodged by the complainant against the opposite parties and this revision is fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. It appears that the very genesis of disputes in this case pertains to question of title and possession in connection with disputed land. The complainant has not been able to bring on record any documentary evidence conclusively establishing his title and possession over the disputed property, rather the civil case is still pending for adjudication. Admittedly, the allegation is leveled against Officials of Forest Department that they protested against the raising of construction made by the complainant over the disputed land and also indulged in assault and demand of extortion. Since, the very genesis of the matter pertains to civil dispute between the parties and there was no sanction for prosecution and the act of the complainant itself appears to be illegal, while intervening in the disputed property by raising construction in spite of pendency of civil litigation, therefore, considering the overall aspects of the case and the reason recorded by learned Trial Court, while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner, this revision requires no interference.

In view of the above discussion and reasons, this revision stands dismissed.

Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.