SADA RAM Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by a private party who was the original complainant, after obtaining leave from this court, against an order of acquittal recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, dated March 16, 1996, in Case No. 203 - 1 of 1992.

(2.) The case of the complainant was that he was an owner of land measuring 0 -4 biswas, comprised in Khasra No. 330/328/7, Khata Khatauni No. 64/83 min, situated in village Daloh, Pargana Sunhani, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. On August 9,1992, at about 9.30, A.M. all the accused entered into the above land, threatened the family members of the complainant, asked them to vacate the land as well as the house where they were residing, failing which they would be killed. It was further the allegation of the complainant that the accused removed 4000 stones valued about Rs.4000/ -, belonging to the complainant which were lying there. With those stones, the accused persons constructed a wall in front of the doors of the complainants house. The house was thus, totally closed and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 342 and 347 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the Code"). It was also the case of the complainant that they had committed offence punishable under Section 5 read with Section 9 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. Since there were more than five persons and the action was taken in furtherance of common object, they were liable to be dealt with for offences punishable under Sections 342, 447 read with Section 149 of the Code.

(3.) According to the complainant, though the incident took place on August 6, 1992, he was threatened by the accused not to take any action and, hence, immediate action could not be taken. After some time, however, on August 10, 1992, the complainant went to Police Station, Talai, and reported the matter. Though police official of Talai did not formally record the complaint as Rapat Roznamcha or FIR, he consoled the complainant and assured him that police will investigate the matter. According to the complainant, however, nothing was done in the matter by the police authorities inspite of several visits by the complainant and, hence, he was constrained to file a private complaint in a competent court on September 9, 1992.