Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1420 (JHR)

Maga Ram Rajwar v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-10

B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2017
ORDER : Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. This revision has been directed against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro passed in Complaint Case No.525 of 2011 by which the Court has taken cognizance under Sections 427 & 430 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The short fact of the case is that complainant/petitioner Maga Ram Rajwar filed C.P. Case No.525 of 2011 against the opposite parties nos.2 to 5 that the complainant being rightful owner of the agricultural land situated near the area of the opposite parties. Opposite parties having land adjacent to the land of the complainant started the work of removal of over burden from their land as well as diverted the flow of Joria flowing from the northern boundary by deploying heavy earth cutting machine and remove the soil and diverted the flowing of water of Joria. The further allegation was that when the complainant and other witnesses protested to illegal work of diversion of water flow, the accused person committed mischief knowing that it would likely to cause a demination of water supply for the agricultural purposes and not fit for human or animal drinking. During rainy season of July and August the artificial diversion of the natural flow of water caused inundation of the agricultural activities and damaging the crop of complainant worth Rs.45,000/-. Accused persons has also removed 200 wooden bars causing damage. 4. After recording inquiry-witnesses, the court vide order dated 14.08.2012 found corroborative evidence available on record and on assessment of materials available on record found prima facie case under Section 427 and 430 of the I.P.C. and directed to issue summons to the accused persons. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the court below is bad in law as the court below has not assigned any reason for not taking cognizance under Sections 435 and 436 of the I.P.C. He further submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate that there is serious invasion of the legal rights although prima facie the evidence was available for taking cognizance under those sections but the court below arbitrarily took cognizance only under Sections 427 and 430 of the I.P.C. 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the counsel for the O.P. No.2 to 4 submitted that it is an interlocutory order against which no revision is maintainable. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the counsel for the O.P. No.2 to 4 submitted that it is an interlocutory order against which no revision is maintainable. They further submitted that no date and time of damages were mentioned in the complaint petition. Actually there was an improvement by the inquiry-witnesses which were not even mentioned in the complaint petition. No mischief of causing fire and damage to the house were given specifically. In the complaint petition, it was not mentioned that any fire or dynamite was used. There is absence of intend to cause damages to the complainant's property. At best the remedies lie under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. Relied upon the decisions reported in the case of Amar Nath and Others versus State of Haryana and Another reported in (1977) 4 SCC 137 and in the case of Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra versus Salman Salim Khan and Another reported in (2004) 1 SCC 525 [: 2014 (1) JLJR (SC) 315] at paragraph 13 held as under:- “Therefore, we think it appropriate that the findings in regard to the sufficiency or otherwise of the material to frame a charge punishable under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. of both the courts below should be set aside and it should be left to be decided by the court trying the offence to alter or modify any such charge at an appropriate stage based on material produced by way of evidence”. 7. Considering the submissions of the parties as well as the materials brought on record, it appears that the court below has taken cognizance under Sections 427 and 430 of the I.P.C. but the complainant herein challenged that the court below ought to have taken cognizance under Sections 435 and 436 of the I.P.C. The court after consideration of the matter and at subsequent stage finding the sufficient evidence may alter the charge. 8. Therefore, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, therefore, the instant revision stand dismissed. 9. However, the petitioner using his legal right may raise appropriate remedy before the appropriate stage.