Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1238 (RAJ)

Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-27

K.C.SHARMA

body2005
Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the order dated 210.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura by which the learned revisional Court accepted the revision petition of the respondents and quashed the order dated 22.01.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence against the respondents. 3. On 21.09.2001, complaint petitioner Ram Singh s/o Prabhat filed a complaint in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) CrPC sent the complaint to SHO, Shahpura for investigation, who in turn, registered a case vide FIR No. 538./2001 for offence under Sections 147, 447, 427, 323, 504 and 379 IPC. The allegations in the complaint may be summarised as hereunder: 4. On 20.09.2001 at about 9.00 a.m. accused Umrao Singh and Hari Singh came to the house of complainant and abused and insulted him. They also threatened to destroy the crop standing on the filed known as Narda-Shala, in respect of which a case was insituted in the Court. There-upon, his father Prabhat became unconscious and was immediately taken to the hospital. After a short while, Sarwan Singh, elder brother of the complainant reached the hospital and informed that Hari Singh, Umrao Singh, Ram Singh, Narendra Singh, Koklesh, Mohan Singh and Prahald Singh came at the well and ran towards Sarwan Singh with intent to kill him. All were armed with weapons and threatened to destroy the crop. When complainant petitioner reached his house, his mother informed that Umrao Singh, Hari Singh and Mahesh Meena hurled filthy abuses, destroyed the crop and took away ploughs. 5. The police investigated into the matter and submitted negative report No. 169/2001 on 310.2001. On the basis of entire material collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer found that Prabhat Singh and Bhanwar Singh were two brothers. Prahbat Singh has three sons, namely Sarwan Singh, Hari Singh and Ram Singh. Bhanwar Singh was issue less and he adopted Hari Singh. Bhanwar Singh and his wife Manni died and after their death, Hari Singh became khatedar of the agricultural land belong to Bhanwar Singh. Prahbat Singh has three sons, namely Sarwan Singh, Hari Singh and Ram Singh. Bhanwar Singh was issue less and he adopted Hari Singh. Bhanwar Singh and his wife Manni died and after their death, Hari Singh became khatedar of the agricultural land belong to Bhanwar Singh. Hari Singh sold the land of his share to Umrao Singh and Narendra Singh vide registered sale deed dated 25.06.2001, in respect of which a case is pending in the Court of ACM, Shahpura. It was in these circumstances and out of enmity, that the complainant by overstanding and exaggeration has got registered the case. Ultimately, the Investigating Officer found it to be a dispute of civil nature. 6. After the final report was submitted, the trial Court issued notice to the complainant. The complainant petitioner submitted a protest petition on 05.01.2002. The trial Court recorded the statement of complainant under Section 200 CrPC and his witnesses Prabhat Singh, Smt. Keshar, Smt. Saroj and Shamhoo etc. on 22.01.2002 under Section 202 CrPC. On 22.01.2002 the trial Court took cognizance of the offence against respondents No. 2 to 7 and two others. 7. On 27.02.2002, the respondents No. 2 to 7 challenged the order taking cognizance, in revision petition. The leaned revisional Court vide its order dated 210.2002 accepted the revision petition and set aside the order of the trial Court taking cognizance. Hence, the present petition. 8. It appears from the papers produced before this Court that the learned Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Shahpura vide its order dated 25.06.2001 restrained Hari Singh not to transfer the land in question by way of sale or otherwise and not to mortgage the disputed land bearing Khasra Nos. 992, 1016, 1072, 1073, 1562 and 1570 to any person and the respondent No. 3 was directed to maintain status quo in respect of revenue record. The order dated 31.07.2001 of the Assistant Collector reflects that Umrao Singh and Narendra Singh, respondents No. 4 and 5 respectively, purchasers of the land were restrained to maintain status quo and not to transfer or mortgage the land in dispute. 9. The order dated 31.07.2001 of the Assistant Collector reflects that Umrao Singh and Narendra Singh, respondents No. 4 and 5 respectively, purchasers of the land were restrained to maintain status quo and not to transfer or mortgage the land in dispute. 9. While dealing with the application for temporary injunction and for appointment of receiver, the learned Additional Collector in its detailed order dated 21.03.2002 has come to a categorical finding that Hari Singh in the capacity as khatedar sold his land to Umrao Singh and Narendra Singh, who are in cultivatory possession and are entitled for mutation in the light of registered sale deed because both Umrao Singh and Narendra Singh are bona fide purchasers. The learned Magistrate found that there was no apprehension of land bearing Khasra Nos. 1066 and 1072 being interfered with as the same being in their cultivatory possession. It was further found that there was no question of applicant being put to any irreparable loss. The learned Assistant Collector concluded that if , for no reason, receiver is appointed on the land bearing Khasra Nos. 1066 and 1072 which is in cultivatory possession of Umrao Singh and Narendra Singh, it would adversely affect their rights, inasmuch as they are bona fide purchasers. It was in these circumstances that the learned ACM dismissed the application of the applicant for appointment of receiver. Simultaneously, the learned ACM vacated the order dated 25.06.2001 maintaining status quo in respect of revenue record concerning Khasra Nos. 992, 1066, 1072, 1073, 1562, 1570 in village Bagawas Chaurasi, Tehsil Viratnagar. Accordingly, the learned Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate restrained both the parties to maintain status quo during pendency of suit, in respect of land in dispute and bound down both the parties not to raise any pucca construction. The parties were further bound down not to sale, transfer or mortgage the land to any person and rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment of receiver. 10. The order dated 21.03.2002 passed by the learned ACM was affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.05.2003. The order of the Revenue Appellate Authority came to be challenged in revision petition before the Revenue Board and the Revenue Board vide its order dated 12.09.2003 maintained the order dated 21.03.2002 passed by the ACM and the order dated 23.05.2003 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 11. The order of the Revenue Appellate Authority came to be challenged in revision petition before the Revenue Board and the Revenue Board vide its order dated 12.09.2003 maintained the order dated 21.03.2002 passed by the ACM and the order dated 23.05.2003 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 11. That apart, having gone through the impugned order, it appears that the revisional Court has taken into consideration every aspect of the matter, including the fact that allegation of the complainant was that (i) respondents duly armed with weapons came at his field and destroyed the crop, whereas the police inspected the site and found that it was the vacant filed (ii) the witnesses have over stated. Had there been incident, the members of the complainant side must have received servere injuries inasmuch as, as per the complainant himself the accused were armed with deadly weapons and there is no evidence as to the causing of such injuries (iii) there was no evidence to show that crop was standing at the field (iv) litigation in respect of land dispute as noted above was pending between the parties in the Court of Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate (v) there was no such evidence suggesting possession of the complainant over the field in dispute. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the firm view that the revisional Court has rightly quashed the order taking cognizance of the offence and hence the order impugned in this miscellaneous petition does not call for any interference. 13. Resultantly, this miscellaneous petition has no force and is hereby dismissed.