SOHNA RAM Vs. INDERPAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOHNA Ram has come in revision against the order dated July 9, 1992 passed Shri S.K. Goyal, JMIC Fazilka vide which he dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE brief facts on the basis of which the complaint was filed may be enumerated.

(3.) THE record brought by the petitioner shows that the petitioner himself was the owner of the land. A wrong entry had been recorded by the Patwari in the Jamabandi showing Sohna Ram accused 2 to be the owner and taking advantages of that entry Sohna Ram had made a transfer. The action of the accused persons had deprived the petitioner of his lawful rights. The fact that the land was transferred to complainant's own grand-sons is hardly of any significance. The complaint also could not be dismissed on the basis that the sale deed was effected 2-1/4 years earlier to the bringing of the complaint. Since the complainant was not a party to the execution of that document, he could lunch execution only after acquiring information and then verifying the fact to be correct. Even if the petitioner had the civil right, it did not debar him from launching the Criminal prosecution. There was sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint. The order of the learned Magistrate is, thus not legally correct.