SHYAMLAL Vs. LAU KUSH RAM LAKHAN PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') the complainant-petitioner calls in question the pregnability of the order dated 16-1-1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Satna, whereby he has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner under Section 203 of the Code.

(2.) THE facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner is in possession in respect of the land measuring 2 Acres, situate at Bari Khurd, Distt. Satna. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner belongs to 'chamar' community. The non-applicants, who are 'brahmins' with the intention and precalculated plan, endeavoured to take possession of the land belonging to the petitioner. The non-applicant No. 1 initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code forming the subject matter of criminal Case No. 17/89 in the Court of City Magistrate, Satna in the year 1989 in which the non-applicant No. 1 became unsuccessful. Thereafter, he filed Civil Suit No. 105-A/95 against the petitioner and others in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Satna and also moved an application for temporary injunction. The said application for interim injunction was rejected on 17-4-1995 which was challenged by the non-applicant No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 32/95 before the learned Additional District Judge who refused to interfere. Having lost in both the forums, as stated in the petition, the non-applicant No. l along with others tried to enter into the land of the petitioner in an illegal manner which was resisted by the younger brother of the petitioner in his absence but the protest was not paid heed to and the non-applicant No. 1 and his group abused the mother, sister and brother of the petitioner and to some other persons of their community and threatened the younger brother of the petitioner with dire consequences if they made efforts to enter into possession. The non-applicants took away the reaped crops of paddy and Soyabin of the petitioner who after returning to the village orally reported the matter at police station but the same was not recorded. Thereafter the same was reported to the S. P. Satna and a copy of it was given to the Town Inspector of Police Station, Kolegaon. As no action was taken by the police, he filed a complaint petition in the Court of Special Judge, Satna on 7-11-1996. Thereafter he also filed an application under Section 94 of the Code. The learned Special Judge by order dated 19-1-1996 held the allegations made in the complaint petition disclosed a cognizable offence and accordingly directed that a copy of the complaint along with the application filed under Section 94 of the Code be sent to the S. P. concerned who shall cause investigation by a senior officer and submit a report. On 16-12-1996 the report was submitted by the Additional S. P. Satna and the Court placed the matter for further hearing on 16-1-1997. On the date fixed the learned Special Judge recorded the absence of the complainant and held that there was land dispute between the complainant and the accused persons and as per the report of the investigating agency no case was made out for offences punishable under Section 3 (i) (v) (vi) (x) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or Section 382/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Being of this view he rejected the application under Section 203 of the Code which is assailed in this revision. 2a. I have heard Mr. A. Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. D. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below has erred in law in rejecting the complaint of the petitioner without examining and hearing the complaint. It is his further submission that the petitioner was present and, in fact, had signed in the order-sheet but the learned Judge has committed an error of record by recording that the complainant was absent. Mr. Khan learned counsel for the respondents in his turn, supported the impugned order.

(3.) ON a perusal of the order sheet it is noticed that the learned trial Judge upon receipt of the complaint and the application filed under Section 94 of the Code opined that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence and accordingly directed the matter to be investigated by a responsible officer to be nominated by the S. P. concerned. This order, in effect, amounts to an order under Section 156 (3) of the Code. Section 156 of the Code reads as under :