Sardari Lal Verma vs State And Others

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14 (A)(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

“It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Appeal may kindly be allowed, and the order dated 11.09.2020 (Annexure-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the learned trial Court may kindly be directed to take cognizance of the offence and proceed for trial as per law.”

As the pleaded facts and record would reveal, appellant-Sardari Lal Verma and his wife, Ramadevi, lodged a complaint against the private respondents, before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara on 10.04.2012, whereupon the matter was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to the Police Station, Banswara; upon which an F.I.R. bearing No. 256/2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, 191, 192 and 193 of the I.P.C. along with Sections 3 (1) (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controversy in the present case arose out of a land dispute between the petitioner and one Devshankar, who had sold certain portions of land to the petitioner, admeasuring about 15 bighas, in the year 1992, vide an agreement for sale, dated 09.07.1992 followed by sale agreement dated 03.07.1995, of which the petitioner continues to retain possession and cultivates such lands, as well. And that, on multiple occasions, the appellant had attempted to get the sale deed in question registered and executed, but his attempts were not fruitful. And that, in the year 2002, Devshankar passed away, whereupon the appellant unsuccessfully sought to execute the same through his survivors, Suresh and late Bhagwati Devi (Respondent no. 2 and the Respondent no. 3).

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser, and that the private respondents; all family members, are not permitting the appellant to enjoy peaceful possession of the land in question.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents jointly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, and submitted that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidences placed on record before it.

It is further submitted that the learned court below has rightly accepted the negative final report / closure report as filed by the concerned police authorities. Furthermore, that the protest petition so preferred on behalf of the appellant against the same, along with a prayer seeking cognizance to be taken against the accused therein, also came to be rejected by the learned court below.

Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the record of the case.

This Court observes that the impugned order has been passed by the learned court below, after recording categorical findings that there is no evidence on the basis of which the charges levelled by the appellant may be sustained. Neither is there any evidence pointing out that there was any verbal abuses and/or casteist slurs hurled at him, nor anything to point out that there was any physical assault or battery. To this extent, the concerned police authorities also filed a negative final report / closure report, finding that no offences for the charges herein are found to be made out against the concerned private respondents.

This Court further observes that the learned court below has passed a detailed and speaking order, after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case. This Court, for the sake of brevity, observes the reasons on the basis of which the learned court below has passed the impugned order; the document in question, on the basis of which the appellant is claiming ownership over the land in question was not registered, moreover, the same was not pursued by the appellant for a long time, and only after the death of Devshankar, did the appellant attempt to gain ownership of such land through institution of any civil proceedings; moreover the appellant himself being a government employee in the land revenue department slept over his alleged right for so long, which does not seem to be a believable story.

This Court therefore, observes that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order, and there is nothing on the record that merit the interference of this Court in the impugned order passed by the learned court below.

This Court thus observes, in light of the above made observations, that the present appeal fails, and the same, is hereby dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.