Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1142 (JHR)

Maulbi Mian v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-18

R.R.PRASAD

body2009
JUDGMENT : This writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no.597 of 1997 lodged by respondent no.2 including the order dated 15.1.2001 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih under which cognizance of the offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 506, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been taken against the petitioner and others. The facts leading to filing of this writ application are that the respondent no.2 filed a complaint case, bearing no.597 of 1997 stating therein that some pieces of land were settled to his grandfather and his co-sharer in a Settlement Case No.152 of 1954-55 and since then they are coming in peaceful possession over the land. But the accused persons since 1993-94 started doing mischief for disturbing the possession of respondent no.2 and his co-sharers. Subsequently, it could be known that accused persons in connivance with this petitioner, a Panchayat Sewak, committed some forgery with the revenue records whereby land was shown to have been entered in the name of Aklu Mian, father of accused no.1 and on that basis even rent receipt was issued for the year 1991 and since then, the accused person started putting his claim over the land which had been settled to the complainant (respondent no.2) by the Government. When the complainant brought the matter relating to forgery to the knowledge of Deputy Commissioner, he got the matter enquired into and then passed order for cancellation of Jamabandi which had been created in the name of father of accused no.1. Thereupon accused no.1 got the complainant implicated in a false criminal case but he was acquitted and being frustrated with the said result, all the accused persons including the petitioner after forming unlawful assembly came over the land of the complainant ( respondent no.2) with a view to dispossess him from the land and committed rioting and they also assaulted him and thereby it was alleged that accused persons committed offence under sections 147, 148, 323, 506, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act . On filing the said compliant, statement of the complainant was taken on solemn affirmation and then the matter was taken for enquiry. Thereupon the court having found the case prima facie true, took cognizance of the offence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this petitioner, who was a Panchayat Sewak, has nothing to do with the land in dispute and as such, there has been no reason on the part of the petitioner to commit offence as has been alleged and that whatever allegation of forgery or otherwise is there, that is vague and as such, the court should not have taken cognizance of the offence, particularly when civil dispute was going on in between the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that whatever allegation has been levelled, that is quite false which would be evident from the order dated 14.6.2005 (Annexure4) passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih, whereby he did not find any title or possession of respondent no.2 over the land who even failed to produce a single chit of paper showing title or possession over the land. However, when the Sub-divisional Officer after cancelling Jamabandi directed Anchal Adhikari to evict one of the accused, Tahir Mian from the disputed land, Tahir Mian filed a writ application whereby this Court directed respondent-State not to dispossess Tahir Mian from the disputed land and in view of all these facts, the prosecution launched against this petitioner and other accused persons certainly seems to be tainted with mala fide and hence, entire criminal prosecution is fit to be set aside. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that it is a case of the complainant that land in question was settled to his ancestor in a settlement case and since then, they were in possession but the accused persons in connivance with this petitioner, got rent receipt issued in the name of one of the accused after committing forgery in the revenue record. It has also been alleged that all the accused persons including the petitioner whose name has been disclosed by the witnesses during enquiry came over the disputed land and assaulted and abused respondent no.2. It has also been alleged that all the accused persons including the petitioner whose name has been disclosed by the witnesses during enquiry came over the disputed land and assaulted and abused respondent no.2. These allegations do constitute offence as alleged, though allegations may be vague but on that ground, prosecution case never warrants to be quashed in absence of any material showing the complaint to be vexatious or frivolous. Going further in the matter it be stated that it would not be proper for this Court to analyze the case of the complainant at this stage in the context of some order being passed by the revenue authority in favour of the petitioner as it would be wholly erroneous to assess the material and to conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. It has been well settled that in a proceeding instituted on a complaint exercise of the inherent power or extraordinary power to quash the proceeding is called warranted only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or the complaint is vexatious or frivolous. Since I have already noted that the allegation does constitute offences as alleged, I do not find it a fit case for quashing of the proceeding and hence, it is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the points before the court below at an appropriate stage. Any finding given in this order shall not be prejudicial as the same was given for the purpose of disposal of this case.