HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. KRISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has moved this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated 3.6.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (I), Amb, whereby the respondents/accused were ordered to be discharged.

(2.) THE petitioner had preferred a complaint on the allegations that he was a co -sharer in joint possession of land comprised in Khewat No. 251 min, Khatauni No. 361, Khasra Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 14, measuring 2 -25 -43 hectares situated in Village Hamboli, Tehsil Amb, District Una. Upon this land there were many valuable trees like Khair, Kikkar, Sheesham etc. and the respondents had cut number of trees from the aforesaid land without prior consent of the complainant or the other co -sharers and without any proper sanction of the competent authority. The petitioner lead his preliminary evidence in support of his case, upon which cognizance against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Sections 379, 467, 471 read with Section 34 IPC was taken. Thereafter the complainant led pre -charge evidence, in which he examined four witnesses. The petitioner did not step into the witness box in the pre -charge evidence, resulting in an adverse inference being drawn by the learned trial Magistrate, consequently leading to discharge of the respondents. It is this order of the Magistrate below, which has been impugned in this proceeding, on the ground that there was sufficient material available with the Court below to frame the charge. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

(3.) WHILE leading pre -charge evidence, petitioner -claimant examined CW -1, Sh. Janam Singh, Range Officer, Amb and proved copy of affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW -5/A. But a close scrutiny of this affidavit shows that the same does not pertains to the land in dispute, but pertains to land comprised in Khata No. 180, Khatoni No. 300, Khasra Nos. 448, 449, 467, 484, 485, 486 and 487. Though the petitioner had claimed this affidavit to be a forged document, but then he himself did not appear in the witness box to depose about the same. CW -2, Harbans Lal and CW -3 Amar Nath had claimed that one of the respondents Krishan Chand had felled trees standing over the land in dispute. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that they had obtained any demarcation to show felling of trees from the land in question. The tone and tenor of the cross -examination of these witnesses clearly suggest that there in fact is a dispute regarding share in consideration for felling of these trees with some society, but then there is nothing to show that there is some nexus or connection of any of the accused with such society. CW -3 Amar Nath had infact categorically deposed that he has no dispute with the accused person, as the land had not yet been demarcated and therefore, it was not ascertainable as to whether trees which were felled were in fact standing upon the land in question or some other land. In so far as testimony of CW -4, Chaman Lal is concerned, the same leads nowhere. Therefore, in this background, it was the petitioner alone, who was the best witness and could have depose about the entire case, but unfortunately he did not choose to step into the witness box.