PRITHI SINGH Vs. JAGDISH CHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against order, dated 25.04.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., and also against order dated 16.04.2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P.

(2.) As per the petitioner, he made a complaint to police of Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur and contended that respondents No. 1 to 3 herein demolished a brick wall forcibly and illegally. Pursuant to his complaint, FIR No. 152 of 2007, dated 11.08.2007, was registered against respondents No. 1 to 3. Precisely, the petitioner contends that the police did not carry the investigation properly and ultimately prepared a cancellation report. The petitioner filed objections against the said report before the learned Trial Court and alleged that the revenue staff wrongly and illegally converted the karu kans and thereby caused deficiency of land. The learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 25.04.2011, accepted the cancellation report and the objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Revision Court, assailing the order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing his objections and accepting the cancellation report, but the same was also dismissed on the premise that during the course of investigation, police got the land demarcated from revenue experts and the wall was found over the land of the accused (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein), hence the present petition preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) Heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the cancellation report was prepared by the police without properly investigating the matter and the learned Trial Court has wrongly, in a cursory way, accepted the cancellation report. He has further argued that even the learned Revisional Court, without application of mind, dismissed his revision petition. He has argued that the police did not take into consideration the fact that by whom the wall was forcibly demolished. This facet has not been considered by the learned Trial Court and by the learned Revisional Court. He has argued that the present petition be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below be quashed and set aside. The matter be investigated afresh and respondents No. 1 to 3 (accused persons) be punished for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 IPC. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 has argued that the demarcation was got conducted by the police and the demarcation report has not attained finality. He has further argued that the demarcation report has been accepted by both the parties and the wall qua which the petitioner is raising objection fell in the land of respondents No. 1 to 3. He has argued that the present is a dispute of civil nature and no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below. He has argued that the learned Courts below have taken the correct view after appreciating the facts and law correctly. He has prayed that in the above backdrop, the petition be dismissed. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 has argued that the instant petition is not maintainable. In order to draw lateral support to what has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel, he has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: