MANOHAR LAL Vs. BALBIR SINGH KUNDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT has filed this revision against the trial Magistrate's order dated 25.10.1986, whereby accused persons were discharged under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) BRIEF resume of the facts of the case is that complainant Manohar Lal filed a complaint under Sections 192/218 of the Indian Penal Code pleading inter alia that he along with his brothers purchased one plot measuring 1 bigha - 4 biswas out of khewat No. 40, Khatoni No. 98, Khasr No. 12 (1B -4B) situated in village Nizampur vide sale deed dated 8.4.1980 from Hari Chand accused No. 3 and his brothers. At the time of purchase of the suit plot, the suit plot was in unauthorised occupation of 19 persons, namely, Ajaib Singh etc. Litigation was going on between them and accused No. 3 Hari Chand. Even after execution of the sale deed of the suit plot, accused No. 3 Hari Chand continued to contest on complainant's behalf. During the pendency of that case Ajaib Singh etc. filed petition (No. 56 of 1980) before the Assistant Collector I Grade for correction of Khasra girdawari. That complaint was also contested by accused No. 3. Accused No. 1, being Patwari of that area, demarcated Khasra No. 12 and prepared the site plan showing existing position of khasra No. 12. Accused No. 3 also gave his statement confiming the correctness of the site plan prepared by accused No. 1. Thereafter the disputed land was vacated by Ajaib Singh and others. Accused No. 3 sold the suit plot alleging it to be a part of khasra No. 13 to his sons vide sale deed dated 18.11.1981. Accused No. 3 was knowing fully well that the plot which he sold to his sons was the same plot which he has already sold to the complainant and his brothers. Accused No. 3 filed the petitions for demarcation of khasra Nos. 12, 13 and 14. Accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 prepared demarcation report dated 3.5.1981. Complainant's allegation is that this report was prepared without going to the spot with a view to cause injury to the complainant and wrongful gain to accused No. 3 and his sons. On these allegations, complainant filed the complaint.

(3.) UNDER Sections 200/202, Code of Criminal Procedure, complainant was examined. At that time he filed five documents in his statement which are : (1) Exhibit P -1, copy of site plan, (2) Exhibit P -2 copy of statement of Hari Chand, (3) Exhibit P -3 photostat copy of the application made by Swaran Singh SI/SHO to Tehsildar, (4) Exhibit P4, photostat copy of Roznamcha, Police Station, Sadar Panipat, (5) Exhibit P -5 photostat copy of Roznamcha prepared by Duli Chand Sadar Kanungo, Local Commissioner. Finding a prima facie case under Sections 193 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code, all the accused were summoned.