Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 274 (JK)

State v. Gian Chand

2001-11-09

R.C.GANDHI

body2001
1. This Revision Petition has arisen out of an order dated: 18-11-1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur, whereby he has discharged the accused for alleged commission of offences under Section 467/468/420/120-B RPC. 2. The prosecution story is that the complainant PW Jai Ram owns a piece of land measuring 09 marlas bearing Khasra No. 3721, the ownership rights of which has been conferred upon him under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. The complainant has also raised a boundary wall with Iron Gate to enclose his land. Adjoining to his land is also a land of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 (namely Kasturi Lal and Kartar Chand) measuring 17 marlas in Khasra No. 3721. In the year 1971 accused Kasturi Lal applied by means of an application for demarcation of his land before the Tehsildar Ramnagar who sent the application to the Girdawar, accused No. 1. He has made a report stating therein that on visiting spot he found that PW Jai Ram has encroached upon the land measuring 12 x 12 i.e. 04 sarsai. This is the basis of controversy in the First Information Report. This is also the case of the prosecution that all the accused entered into a conspiracy to prepare this report. The report dated: 18-10-1971 is purported to have been prepared by Sansar Chand, Patwari halqa Thalora. On the basis of which he had submitted the report. Neither the original report is traceable nor Sansar Chand, Patwari is arrayed as accused. 3. On the basis of this, an First Information Report No. 15 of 1995 came to be registered and after investigation, Government was approached for granting sanction to prosecute the accused. The Government considered the report of the Investigating Agency and did not grant sanction for prosecution of the accused rather directed departmental action to be taken. According to Mr. Parihar, learned AAG, the departmental action has already been taken and the findings are that the accused was negligent but no punishment was imposed. 4. Again an attempt has been made by the complainant and second First Information Report came to be registered. After investigation a challan has been presented for the prosecution of the respondents. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. 4. Again an attempt has been made by the complainant and second First Information Report came to be registered. After investigation a challan has been presented for the prosecution of the respondents. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Parihar, learned AAG, has to make out as to whether second First Information Report could be registered for the commission of the same offence when it stood investigated and brought to a logical end by submitting before the Government for according sanction and prosecution of the accused, being a public servant. On consideration of the report of the prosecution Government came to the conclusion that the accused has committed misconduct and should be proceeded for departmental action under the Service Rules for imposing penalty and punishment. The State is within its rights to proceed against the accused in this manner also provided such an action of the State is bonafide and in Public Interest. There is no challenge to this action of State directing to proceed against the petitioner under Service Rules. 6. So far as registering of second First Information Report is concerned, it is settled proposition of law that second First Information Report for the same offence cannot be registered. First Information Report may be split or bifurcated but cannot be instituted again, if it is permitted there-will be no end of registering First Information Report and investigation of the occurrence. It is a case where second First Information Report has been instituted. 7. The learned trial court on facts found that no case against the respondents is make out and noticing from the record the court observed that demarcation of the land has been made by Girdawar on the basis of document which was annexed with the application presented before the Tehsildar and attested by the Revenue Officer, which the accused has taken as bonafide document. Otherwise also, it could not be make out whether that document was fabricated. Under these circumstances, I do not see any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the trial court. No case for interference is made out. Revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.