MURARI LAL CHHARI Vs. MUNISHWAR SINGH TOMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent filed a complaint under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the 'CrPC') against the appellants. The dispute relates to land bearing Survey Nos.1822 and 1823 having an area of 2 bighas and 1 biswa in Gwalior city (the Suit property). According to the first respondent - complainant, about 353 acres of land comprising several survey nos. situated in the adjacent villages has been allotted for the use of the Special Armed Forces (SAF) by the Home Department. The present appellants are officers of SAF.

(2.) The first respondent filed a civil suit in respect of the said property for a declaration of his title as Bhumiswami and a permanent injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal against the decree of the Trial Court. However, in the Second Appeal, the High Court interfered and passed a decree of declaration and permanent injunction. A Special Leave Petition filed against the decree of the High Court was dismissed with costs. In 2016, the first respondent filed a Contempt Petition against the first appellant, who was the Commandant of the 14th Battalion of SAF at Gwalior. The allegation was of a breach of the decree passed on 20/3/2013 by the High Court in the Second Appeal preferred by the first respondent. The allegation was that the first appellant attempted to violate the decree of the High Court in the Second Appeal and trespass upon the suit property. The High Court dismissed the Contempt Petition by Order dtd. 11/10/2017. The High Court held that the demarcation of the suit property bearing Survey nos. 1822 and 1823 was carried out ex­parte by the first respondent in the absence of a representative of SAF. It was observed that a boundary dispute has cropped up between the SAF and the first respondent. During the pendency of the Contempt Petition, in 2017, the complaint subject matter of this petition under Sec. 200 of CrPC was filed by the first respondent alleging the commission of offences under Ss. 323, 294, 427, 341, 447, 506B read with Sec. 34 and Ss. 107, 141 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegation in the complaint was that though the first respondent was declared as the owner of the suit property by the High Court and though the demarcation of the suit property was carried out after notice to the SAF, the first appellant conspired with the other appellants to illegally capture the suit property. The specific allegation in the complaint is that on 8/1/2017, the appellant nos. 2 to 6 were present on the suit property, and they broke the fencing, which caused a loss of Rs.50,000.00 to the first respondent. It is alleged that when the first respondent objected, the appellants verbally abused the first respondent, and he was pushed several times. Even a death threat was administered by the appellants to the first respondent. The appellants also threatened the first respondent to send him to jail.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, before whom the complaint was filed, recorded the statement of the first respondent under Sec. 200 of CrPC. It appears that the learned Magistrate took recourse to the inquiry under Sec. 202 of CrPC and recorded statements on oath of two witnesses of the first respondent, Hari Singh Yadav and Lakhan Singh Tomar.