DEV NARAIN DEV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has assailed the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr passed in Criminal Revision No. 81 of 1996 whereby he set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under Section 379 IPC in complaint case No. 551 of 1996.

(2.) The complainant, petitioner herein, filed the aforesaid complaint alleging that on 30-5-1996 at about 2 P.M. the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons") being armed with lathis came to his house, dismantled the roof and removed the rafters and other materials. He lodged a report to the police, but as no case was registered on such report, he complained to the Superintendent of Police. Even thereafter when no action was taken, he approached the Court by filing the aforesaid complaint. Learned Magistrate after having recorded the statement of the complainant conducted enquiry as envisaged in Section 202 Cr.P.C. in course of which he recorded the evidence of the witnesses as produced by the complainant. Thereupon, on scrutiny of the evidence he was satisfied that there is a prima facie case under Section 379 IPC and accordingly took cognizance of the said offence and issued process against the accused persons for their appearance. Aggrieved thereby, the accused persons preferred revision and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the complaint. The legality and propriety of the said order of the revisional Court is under challenge in the present proceeding.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the complainant strenuously urged that the revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction permitting the accused persons to lead some documentary evidence in consideration whereof it came to hold that since there was serious dispute with regard to title and possession of the house in question between the parties, the criminal case was not maintainable and this finding being contrary to the materials on record, the impugned order requires interference of this Court in exercise of inherent power conferred by Section 482, Cr.P.C. He further urged that the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence being interlocutory one, revision could not have been entertained by the learned Sessions Judge, in view of the bar created by Section 397(2), Cr.P.C.