Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 251 (JHR)

Rasendra Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2003-02-24

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2003
Order Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. i.e. Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe P.S. case no. 16 of 2002 registered under sections 447, 427/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 39(1)(IV)(V) of Sehedule Caste and Sehedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The gist of the allegation made in the F.I.R. registered on the basis of the written report, by the opposite party no.2 to the Officer in-Charge of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe police station, are that r the informant claimed the ownership of the land, having an area of 19 decimals bearing plot no.978, Khata no. 173, situated at St. Peters School Road, Birsa Chowk, Hinoo, in the district of Ranchi, on the basis of the purchase by a registered deed. He claimed that, he on the basis of an agreement dated 24.4.1993 was in occupation of his house after having constructed boundary walls and since then was residing with his family members. 4. It is alleged that on 14.12.2002, the informant said to have raised boundary wall to the height of 3-1/2-4 feet. In the evening at 7-7.30 PM. when the informant's wife, son and daughter were present in the house, at that time the accused persons, along with their men, came and demolished the newly constructed boundary wall. On the basis of the said report, the present F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons, under the aforesaid sections as mentioned above and the investigation was taken up. 5. The petitioners, who are named in the F.I.R., have prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. and the investigation of the case by the police. 6. The court by order dated 23.1.2003, issued notice to the opposite party no.2, consequently the opposite party no.2 has appeared and has filed counter-affidavit. 7. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jerath, on the basis of the statements made in the petition, has submitted that the petitioner no.1 is the owner of portion of RS. Plot no. 978 area 54 Kathas, over which he constructed a house in 1993 and Jhari Khalkho i.e. informant/opposite party no.2. was inducted as a monthly tenant. 9. He further states that when the informant defaulted in payment of rent, he filed Eviction Title suit no. Plot no. 978 area 54 Kathas, over which he constructed a house in 1993 and Jhari Khalkho i.e. informant/opposite party no.2. was inducted as a monthly tenant. 9. He further states that when the informant defaulted in payment of rent, he filed Eviction Title suit no. 40/1998, in the court of the Munsif, Ranchi, which is still pending. A copy of the plaint has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the application. 10. The petitioners further state that regarding the dispute about raising the boundary walls, a proceeding under section 145 of Cr. P.C. was started between the parties, which was subsequently converted into a proceedings under section 145 of Cr. P.C. Even a proceeding under section 188 of Indian Penal Code was initiated against the informant for violating the prohibitory order. Copies of the order sheets of those proceeding have been annexed with the petition. 11. It is submitted by the petitioner, that when the informant found that he has no option but to vacate the house, the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant, with the sole purpose to vex and harass the petitioners. 12. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that at best the present dispute, can be a matter of purely civil dispute and therefore the F.I.R. and the investigation are liable to be quashed. 13. On the other hand, controverting the statements of the petitioners, the opposite party no. 2 has stated that he is not a tenant under the petitioners, rather he is owner of the house in question, which has been purchased by him by registered deed from the rightful owner of the property. The opposite party further says that the petitioners cannot be the owner of the property because the land is a tribal land and under the provisions of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, a non-tribal cannot become the owner of a tribal land and all the proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioners, are only for the purpose of grabbing the property of the opposite party no. 2 who is a tribal. A number of documents have been annexed by the opposite party no.2 with his counter-affidavit. 14. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the petitioners have annexed a number of documents including the order sheets of different cases. 15. 2 who is a tribal. A number of documents have been annexed by the opposite party no.2 with his counter-affidavit. 14. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the petitioners have annexed a number of documents including the order sheets of different cases. 15. In my view, the facts and the documents in support thereof cannot be examined by this court at this stage, when the investigation of the case by the police is going on. The police has got the statutory power to investigate a case when the F.I.R. has been registered. 16. Times without number, the Supreme Court has held that the F.I.R. can be quashed by the High Court only in rarest of the rare case. 17. At the stage of investigation, this court cannot give its own finding on the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties, nor the High Court would be justified in starting of parallel investigation of the case by examining the pros and cons of the respective cases of the parties. 18. This court would not be justified at all in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuiness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. It is the prerogative of the police to investigate the case. 19. All the facts and its supportive documents can very well be examined by the police during investigation. 20. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, I am of the considered opinion that the powers under section 482 of Cr. P.C. cannot be exercised for quashing of the F.I.R./investigation particularly in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, I refrained myself in making any sort of observation or comments on the allegation and counter allegation made by the parties. 21. In the result, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly it is dismissed.