SUMANT SAREEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18th August, 2003, whereby the learned CMM in his order framing charge has held that he finds no reason why the accused who was in illegal possession of Gram Sabha Land cannot be charged for an offence under Section 447/34 IPC in view of the material available on record.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased agricultural land measuring 5 bighas 8 biswas in Village Satbari, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi by a sale deed dated 7th January, 1981 and began cultivating the same. The Block Development Officer (South) on enquiry found that 16 biswas of land in khasra No.696 in Village Satbari belonging to the Gram Sabha has been trespassed upon by the petitioner. Consequently, he lodged an FIR No. 527/1997 at Police Station Mehrauli. On completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis of material collected during investigation came to the conclusion that prima facie the accused had committed an offence under Section 447 IPC and framed charges accordingly.

(3.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that Section 84(2) of the Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 is a bar against proceedings under Section 447 IPC. He submits that vide order dated 19th December, 2003 in Crl.Rev.No.1042/2002, this court has held that Section 84(2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act is a bar to proceedings under Section 441 IPC in case there is a trespass on agricultural land.