SATISH MAHANT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order, the above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of.

(2.) Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of the complaint No.69 dated 17.12.2005 filed under Section 3(iv)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') titled as Umed Singh vs. Tek Ram and others pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Meham and summoning order dated 24.3.2006 alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint in question was liable to be quashed as a perusal of the complaint itself did not reveal that any criminal offence had been committed by the petitioners under Section 3(iv) and (v) of the Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that it was not mentioned by the complainant in the complaint that he had ever been handed over the land or that he had ever been dispossessed from the suit land. The land of the owner/big landlord was declared surplus by Collector Agrarian Rohtak vide order dated 21.1.1985. The land owner moved an application under Section 5(A) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972(for short 'Ceiling Act') seeking exemption of the land in question from the surplus pool. The said application was allowed vide order dated 21.1.1985 (Annexure P4) by the Sub Divisional Officer(N), Prescribed Authority, Rohtak. Thus, the petitioners were in lawful possession of the suit land as the land in question had been exempted from the surplus pool.