MOHAMMAD ASLAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this criminal miscellaneous application, the prayer has been advanced to quash the order of the revisional court dated 14.6.2006 dismissing the revision No. 35/2006, Mohd. Aslam v. State. The said revision was filed challenging the order of Judicial Magistrate 7.1.2006, whereby the Magistrate had refused to take cognizance of the matter and dismissed the complaint No. 564 of 2005, Mohd. Aslam v. Noor Hasan and Ors. Under Section 203 Code of Criminal Procedure It has further been prayed that the learned Magistrate may be directed to take cognizance in the matter and summon the Respondents.

(2.) THE bone of contention between the parties lies over an agricultural land situated in village Salempur Mehdood, Tehsil and District Haridwar bearing new Khata No. 140, Gata No. 1764, area 2 -12 -0 hectare. The said land, as per the averments of Mohd. Aslam, is in his possession for the last 40 years coming from his ancestors and recorded in the Category -9 of the concerning revenue record. This category does mean that he does not own the said land but yet occupying the same, while the name of one Sri Jimmu S/o Fakira over the said land was recorded in C.H. Form -5 showing his ownership over the land. Sri Jimmu made a sale deed of the same land in favour of Noor Hasan, who in turn after some time, further sold it to Respondent Nos. 6 to 10. It appears that Jimmu is now no more and his successors Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Akhtar Hasan and Wahid Hasan have been impleaded as the accused in the complaint No. 564 of 2005.

(3.) THIS Court has heard the learned Counsel of both the parties and is in agreement with the views, as taken by the trial court as well as the revisional court for the reason that this complaint obviously arose out of vengeance just to exert the pressure upon all the accused persons, who have got executed a sale deed from a rightful owner. The incident does not inspire confidence for yet another reason, inasmuch as, if five persons (accused) assaulted the complainant and his brother so vigorously, as described in the complaint, then the signs of assault should have been apparent on the body of complainant, which were not found, and that is why he did not submit himself for medical examination.