RAM PAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dtd. 27/5/2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.III, Amb, District Una (learned Trial Court) in a case titled State versus Ram Pal and others, vide which the learned Trial Court framed charges against the petitioners (accused before the learned Trial Court) for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 147, 342, 323, and 504, read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner in which they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 147, 149, 323, 342, and 504 of IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Saroj Kumari, reached home on 21/3/2013 at about 3 PM. She heard the noise of a tractor being driven. She enquired from her sister, Manju, about her father. Manju replied that he had gone towards the field. The informant and Manju went towards the field. She enquired from Rampal, his wife Sushma Devi, his mother Prakash Devi, sister Veena Devi and nephew Pankaj as to why they were cultivating the land when an injunction order was issued by the Court. Ram Pal snatched her mobile. Other persons pushed her and gave her beatings with kicks and fist blows. They also beat her father and her sister Manju. They took the informant and her sister to their room where they abused and beat the informant and her sister. The informant's earrings, necklace and mobile were missing after the incident. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police filed a chargesheet against the accused for the commission of offences punishable and Ss. 147, 149, 323, 447, and 504 of the IPC after the completion of the investigation. Learned Trial Court took cognizance and ordered the putting of notice of accusation on 27/5/2016.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of putting the notice of accusation, the petitioners/accused filed the present petition asserting that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Amb, District Una had directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the possession and alienation on 7/3/2012. The petitioner's father applied for implementation of the status quo order. Learned Trial Court directed Station House Officer (SHO) Amb to implement the status quo order issued by it and file a status report on or before 22/2/2013 vide order dtd. 16/1/2013. SHO and other police officials visited the spot on 16/1/2013 and directed the parties not to interfere in the possession of others and obey the orders of status quo passed by the Court. The petitioner started ploughing Khasra number 882 adjoining his house on 21/3/2013 at about 3:15 PM with the help of a tractor owned by Sudarshan Kumar and driven by Mahinder Singh. Ram Pal and his daughters, Saroj Manju, Harmesh, Rashpal, Madhubala, Veena and Sushma came to the spot to interfere in the possession of the petitioner and violate the order dtd. 7/3/2012. They abused and gave beatings to Rampal, who cried for help and his wife Sushma and mother Prakash Devi came to the spot to rescue him. However, they were beaten by Agya Ram and others. Rampal, Sushma and Prakash Devi sustained injuries in the incident. Sushma also lost her mangalsutra. Surinder Thakur, Shama Devi, Rani Bala and Mukesh Kumar rescued the petitioners from the informant and others. FIR no. 31/2013 was lodged by Rampal on 21/3/2013 regarding the incident. The police applied for demarcation. Jagdev Singh Kanugo and Bidhi Chand Patwari demarcated the land. Khasra number 882 was found in possession and ownership of Daulat Ram. Sudarshan Kumar and Mahendra Singh did not support the prosecution case and the other persons are interested witnesses. They were the aggressors and were arrested as accused in FIR No. 31 of 2013 lodged by the petitioner. The informant lodged the present FIR as a counterblast to the FIR lodged against them. FIR does not fulfil the basic ingredients of the offences punishable under Ss. 147, 149, 323, 447, 504, and 342 of IPC. Even if the allegations are accepted at their face value, they do not constitute any offence. The FIR does not mention the common object of the unlawful assembly. The informant Saroj Kumari and Aya Ram were aggressors and obstructed the petitioners from sowing the crop. Learned Trial Court failed to apply its mind to the facts of the case. The allegations in the FIR are civil and the learned Trial Court erred in putting the notice of accusation to the accused. The allegations in the FIR are inherently improbable. No prudent person would act upon them and conclude that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted with the ulterior purpose of wreaking vengeance upon the petitioners and settling scores with them. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed, the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside and FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR be quashed.