RAMKUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present Cr.M.P. under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR No. 62/2021 registered against them at Police Station - Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for commission of offence under Ss. 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and Ss. 3(1)n /k and 3(2)(v)d of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the SC/ST Act") (which has been subsequently added in the FIR) as well as subsequent chargesheet submitted before the learned Special Judge (ST/SC) Mahasamund on 13/12/2022, present petitioners namely Ramkumar Agrawal, Radha Agrawal, Garima Agrawal & Reema Agrawal restraining the construction, have broken the wall and started abusing and assaulted the complainant which has caused injuries on her right wrist, left shoulder and face. It is also case of the prosecution that the petitioners have also committed marpit with her sister-in-law (Jethani) namely Bharti Sonwani. The incident was seen by Gajanand Sahu & Saddam Tandon. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the FIR has been registered against the present petitioners for commission of offence as aforestated.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that neither the petitioners nor respondents are owners of the property, it is private land, which is being used by the complainant as their way, therefore, the complainant has no locus standi in interfering with peaceful possession of the property. He would further submit that the civil suit was also filed before the trial Court where law of torts has been filed against the complainant. He would further submit that the complainant has also filed complaint against the petitioners before Judicial Magistrate First Class for causing loss of the property owned by the complainant to the tune of Rs.2234.00 which is also still pending. He would further submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime in question as from perusal of the FIR, it is quite vivid that no offence is made out against the petitioners and would pray for quashing of the aforesaid FIR as well as the subsequent chargesheet filed against them.

(3.) On the other hand learned State counsel would submit that there is sufficient material placed on record regarding prima facie establishing commission of offence as afore-stated, therefore, at this juncture, whether the property used by the petitioners is owned by them, is a matter of evidence which can be decided after adducing evidence before the trial Court and the same cannot be a ground for quashing of the entire FIR. He would further submit that the FIR has rightly been registered against the petitioners and would pray for dismissal of the petition.