SANTOSH SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the order passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Guna in Special S.T. No. 4/2013, whereby charges under Sections 294, 506B, 326/34 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been framed against the petitioners. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that complainant has lodged a report at P.S. Aron alleging that civil dispute is going on with regard to some agricultural land with Udaybhan Singh Raghuvanshi. On 15.10.2012 Udaybhan Singh and Santosh Singh were cutting the crops of complainant, when complainant asked Udaybhan Singh and Santosh Singh why they are cutting her crop, then Udaybhan Singh gave abuses in the name of caste and said that who is she to stop them and gave a Farsa blow on elbow of right hand. Santosh Singh gave a Lathi blow on the back and on right ear. When complainant raised alarm Ramkalibai, Shribai came there and saved the complainant. Udaybhan Singh and Santosh Singh threatened the complainant that if she will again come in the field, she will be killed. Upon this Crime No. 344/2012 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After due investigation charge sheet has been filed in the Court of the Special Sessions Judge (Atrocities), Guna. Learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order framed the charges against the petitioners under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Being aggrieved by the same petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned trial Court has not rightly considered the documentary evidence before framing the charges and committed illegality in passing the impugned order. The complainant herself has stated in her report that civil dispute is going on. The complainant party has filed a civil suit for restoration of possession over the disputed land, which shows that the complainant was not in possession of the disputed land. The petitioners were in possession. It is further submitted that prior to the incident an agreement to sell regarding the disputed land was executed in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that to avoid re-payment of the advance money and the execution of the sale deed a false report has been lodged. It is further submitted that prima facie it is not proved that the incident has been committed in a public view with an intention of insulting the complainant, hence no charge is made out under the provisions of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is prayed that petition be allowed, impugned order be set aside and the petitioners be discharged.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 have supported the impugned order submitting that prima facie material collected during investigation, which discloses the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, therefore, the charges framed by the learned Sessions Judge (Atrocities), Guna are proper and requires no interference.