Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1544 (RAJ)

Arvind Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-09-18

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner Arvind Singh seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 364/2012 registered at P.S. Sumerpur for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 427, 143 and 435 I.P.C. 2. The complainant Bhanwar Singh filed F.I.R. an at Police Station Sumerpur on 27.10.2012 with the allegations that he and his family members are in possession of land bearing Khasra nos. 94, 106, 107 to 117 measuring 8.77 hectares since the time of their ancestors. They were in cultivatory possession of the land since time immemorial. By error, the Khatedari of the land in question was entered in the name of some Meghwals and one Chhogalal of Netra. They filed a suit for correction in the revenue entries. The persons belonging to Meghwal community undertook some proceedings for taking possession. The Government also made efforts to acquire the land in question which were challenged before the R.A.A. and the Revenue Board and the proceedings were quashed. It was alleged that Chhogalal in whose name ⅓rd of the land was erroneously entered in the revenue record sold it to Arvind Singh. Chhogalal was never in possession of the property in question. It was alleged that in the night previous to the filing of the F.I.R., Arvind Singh along with 20-25 other persons came to the field armed with weapons on two tractors and J.C.B. and assaulted the complainant, Dinesh Singh and Naring and set fire to the fencing surrounding the field. They wanted to take forcible possession of the land and well constructed on the same. The water pipelines which was installed on the field was also damaged. On this report, F.I.R. No. 364/2012 was registered at the Police Station Sumerpur for the aforementioned offences and investigation commenced. 3. The petitioner has challenged the said F.I.R. by way of the instant misc. petition. Whilst considering the petition, on 22.1.2013, learned Public Prosecutor informed this Court that the police has filed charge sheet no. 305 before the learned trial court on 22.12.2012. In view of the aforesaid statement, the misc. petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application for restoration stating that the statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor was incorrect. It was claimed that the charge sheet was not filed in the trial court as mentioned by the Public Prosecutor. In view of the aforesaid statement, the misc. petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application for restoration stating that the statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor was incorrect. It was claimed that the charge sheet was not filed in the trial court as mentioned by the Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted a factual report to this Court, as per which the charge sheet was actually presented in the trial Court but as the accused was not available on that day, the Court returned the same back to the I.O. By order dated 4.3.2014, this Court restored the misc. petition to its original number. The matter has been heard today on the question of admission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the property in question. He purchased the land from its Khatedar tenant Chhoga. Chhoga was holding possession of the land and the same was transferred to the petitioner on the date of sale which was carried out on 4.5.2012. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for trespass into his own land and setting fire to the fencing which is owned by the petitioner himself. He, therefore, prays that the misc. petition deserves to be accepted and the F.I.R. impugned deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the land in question was in possession of the complainant party since generations. The same was erroneously entered in the name of Chhoga Lal and Meghwals in revenue record. Proceedings for correction of entries in revenue record were filed and the Panchayat set aside the mutation vide order dated 5.7.2012. The petitioner and two others challenged the order dated 5.7.2012 passed by the Panchayat before the S.D.M. Sumerpur. The S.D.M. Sumerpur by order dated 26.12.2012 set aside the order passed by the Panchayat. Learned counsel submits that the order was passed by the learned S.D.M. in favour of the petitioner and two others on 26.12.2012. The petitioner took law into his own hands and forcibly tried to take possession of the land in question 27.10.2012. During this process injuries were caused to the complainant party and damage was also caused to the field in question. The petitioner took law into his own hands and forcibly tried to take possession of the land in question 27.10.2012. During this process injuries were caused to the complainant party and damage was also caused to the field in question. They, therefore, submit that exfacie it is not a fit case for exercising inherent powers of this Court to interfere in the impugned order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 complainant. Perused the material on record.It is evident that there is a specific allegation of the complainant that he and his family members were in cultivatory possession of the land in question since generations. The sale deed which the petitioner claims to have been executed in his favour by Chhogalal des not set out specific boundaries and demarcations of the land allegedly owned by Chhogalal. The mutation entries made in favour of the petitioner and two others on the basis of the sale was set aside by the Panchayat on 5.7.2012. The petitioner challenged the said mutation entry. The S.D.M., Sumerpur reversed the order of Panchayat vide order dated 26.12.2012. There is a specific allegation that much before the order passed by the S.D.M., the petitioner accompanied with his stooges, tried to take forcible possession of the property. Injuries were caused to the complainant party and property was damaged. Thus, exfacie it would neither be prudent nor it is warranted at this stage to hold that the impugned F.I.R. does not disclose essential ingredients of cognizable offences so as to exercise inherent powers of this Court to quash the same.Resultantly, the misc. petition as well as the stay application being devoid of merit are dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******