BALRAJ SINGH MEIJI Vs. PIARA SINGH DHILLON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the cases bearing No. CRM No.30123-M of 2004 and 29926-M of 2005 arise out of the same incident. Crl. Misc.No.30123 has been filed at the instance of the accused persons who were alleged to have committed the offences under Section 447, 506, 120-B IPC read with Section 3(1) Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act) for quashing of FIR No.66 dated 1.6.2003 registered at the Police Station Kurali Distt. Rohtak and Crl.Misc.No.29926 of 2005 is for quashing of complaint and the summoning order issued by the ACJM, Rohtak.

(2.) The incident that sets off the registration of a complaint as FIR by the police is the alleged action of all the petitioners entering upon the property in Village Majra Hadbast No. 332 where the respondent claimed that he has installed submersible 15 HP electricity tubewell and constructed a two room house in Khasra No.22/4. The respondent had filed a civil suit against the accused persons before the Civil Court at Kharar for injunction and at the time of complaint there had been an order dated 8.5.2003 directing the status quo to be maintained. The complaint was that in violation of the order the accused persons came to the property on 26.5.2003 at about 9.30 and started fixing cemented poles and barbed wires. The complainant stated that he had requested the accused not to take the law into their hands whereupon they had threatened the respondent that if he prevented them, he would be killed. This was said to have been reported to the police on 25.5.2003 but on the subsequent day on 26.5.2003 the accused entered into a Criminal conspiracy and trespassed into the house in the respondent's land and looted his property worth about Rs. 10,000/-. The respondent would claim that he is a member of the Scheduled Caste and the illegal usurpation of his property as an owner/occupant would itself constitute an offence under the relevant provisions of the Act. The investigation which was originally taken up by the ASI was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who after the investigation filed the challan setting out the names of the petitioners in Crl.Misc. No.30123-M of 2004 as persons who are accused and let off on bail, while naming the petitioner in Crl.Misc. No.29926-M of 2005 in Column No.2 of the challan.

(3.) During the course of the proceedings, before this Court, it transpired that the Civil Court had granted a decree of injunction in favour of the complainant/respondent and the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners represented that they would have no objection to the property being demarcated by the revenue officials. Since the whole dispute sprang from rival assertions to title and possession in respect of immovable property, in order to quell all the subsisting disputes, I had directed that the District Commissioner, Ropar to depute an officer to carry out the demarcation in the presence of the parties. Such a report was also secured by this Court but it has not really caused any abatement to the dispute. The report itself has become contentious for the respondent to still contend that there has been no proper demarcation done. The report cannot be understood as either final or binding on the parties but it only registers the fact that an attempt to resolve the dispute between the parties has not come to naught.