BHAGAT RAM Vs. SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Magistrate on 12.8.1997, whereby accused persons have been discharged, the complainant has filed this criminal revision.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 8.6.1996, petitioner -complainant submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, complaining that he lodged a report at P.S. Dhand, District Kaithal on 7.6.1996 mentioning that his standing crop of Sun Flower was illegally destroyed by the respondent -accused on 6.6.1996 but the Police has not registered any offence. Thereafter on being directed, police registered daily diary on 8.6.1996 with regard to the said incident. During investigation SI/SHO P.S. Dhand visited the spot and recorded FIR on 10.6.1996 under Sections 148/149/447/427/IPC against the accused persons. During investigation, I.O. found that the facts mentioned in the complaint were correct and a loss of Rs. 20,000/ - has been caused to the complainant. After completing the investigation charge -sheet was filed under Section 173 Cr. P.C. in the Court of JMIC, Kaithal.

(3.) JUDICIAL Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal, summoned the accused persons and at the time of hearing arguments with regard to the framing of the charge he considered the documents submitted by the accused persons also. Copies of Khasra Girdawaries were filed alongwith the Challan to prima facie show the complainant's possession over the disputed land but the trial Magistrate considered the judgment, Annexure 'A' and opined that thee revenue papers are prepared for fiscal purposes and in the judgment Annexure 'A' there is finding of the Civil Court that respondent -accused are in possession of the disputed land by way of adverse possession. He also commented that complainant also filed an application for temporary injunction which was dismissed vide order dated 30.8.1994 and his suit for permanent injunction was also dismissed in default on 4.10.1994. Thus on the basis of these documents, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that complainant is not in possession of the disputed property and therefore inference is to be drawn that the accused persons are owners in possession of the suit property vide judgment Annexure 'A'. On the basis of this finding, the Learned Magistrate finding the charge groundless discharged the accused under Sections 447/427/148/149/IPC vide impugned judgment.