PRABHULA Vs. MOHOMMAD VASHEER KHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been filed this criminal revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Crimial P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in S.T. No.16/2015, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha discharged the accused from the charge under Sec. 392/34 of IPC.

(2.) The agricultural land bearing Survey No. 168 situated at village Kulua Mahua Kheda, Tehsil Sironj, District Vidisha is a root for initiation of criminal prosecution. As per prosecution case, the allegation levelled against the non-applicants is that on 21.02.06, they entered into the agricultural field belonging to the applicant and took away crop of Gram by force without consent of the applicant, thereupon the applicant informed the Police regarding the commission of above offence. However, the Police did not take any action, in furtherance to the complaint prompting the applicant to take recourse of remedy of filing application under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sironj which was dismissed by the Court. The applicant preferred criminal revision no.188/2007 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj which was allowed on 06.08.2010 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj directed the trial Court to take cognizance against the non-applicants under Sec. 384 of Penal Code or other greater offence, if he found fit. Thereafter the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sironj registered the complaint under Sec. 384 of Penal Code against the non-applicants and after appearance of the non-applicants, the case was fixed for recording of evidence before charge. The Judicial Magistrate First Class recorded the statement of complainant Prabhulal and his wife Sharda Bai and found prima facie that the charge under Sec. 392 of Penal Code is made out against the non-applicants/accused and directed to commit the case before the Sessions Court under the provisions of Sec. 323 of Crimial P.C. vide order dated 8.5.2014. That order was challenged by the non applicants/accused persons before the Sessions Court by filing revision petition no.94/2014 which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj vide order dated 25.11.2014 and the order of the trial Court was upheld. Thereafter, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sironj vide its order dated 26.12.2014 committed the case to the Sessions Court for the trial regarding commission of offence under Sec. 392 of IPC.

(3.) When the matter was put up before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, he heard the argument before charge on 18.05.2016 and after scrutiny of the evidence before charge recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class found that no case was made out against the non-applicants and discharged the accused persons. This is the order which is challenged before this Court.