RAMSWAROOP AND OTHERS Vs. BABULAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been preferred by the applicants/accused under Section 397/401 of CrPC being aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2011 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (MP), in Sessions Trial No. 236/2011, whereby the charge under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1960 (IPC) has been framed against the applicants.

(2.) The agricultural land bearing survey No. 84/738/1 admeasuring 3.083 Hectare situated in village Todra, Tahsil Raghogarh, District Guna is the root for initiation of criminal prosecution. As per the prosecution case the allegation levelled against the applicants is that on 5.2.2009 they entered into the agricultural field belonging to the respondent No.1 Babulal and took away the crops amounting to Rs.35000/- and in that process certain injuries were also inflicted upon the complainant and his son Chandra Shekhar. The respondent No.1 made a complaint to the Police Station Jamner, District Guna regarding the alleged offence but the police did not act in furtherance to the complaint prompting the respondent No.1 to take recourse to the remedy of filing complaint under Section 200 of CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raghogarh. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, cognizance was taken by the learned JMFC and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The applicants filed an application under Section 227 of CrPC before the trial Court with the prayer that prima facie no offence under Section 395 of IPC is made out against them. This application has been rejected by the impugned order and the trial Court framed the charge against the applicants under Section 395 of IPC which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(3.) The contentions which have been canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants are that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case on account of civil dispute, which is pending between the parties in the form of appeal filed by the applicant No.2- Daulatram before the Second Additional District Judge, Guna and the same is yet to be decided. Thus, in the civil dispute it would be decided that who is the owner of the suit property. It is further submitted that an FIR was registered against the applicants at Crime No.44/2009 with respect to the same offence, which is subject matter of present case. From perusal of FIR of Crime No.44/2009, it is crystal clear that no allegations were levelled against the lady applicants. They have been falsely implicated in the present case which is an after thought just to put pressure upon the applicants in civil dispute.