PUNJAB SINGH Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been maintained by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.1.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Cr. Revision No.17 of 2016 and order dated 18.05.2016 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nadaun, in case No.3 of 2016.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant (hereinafter to be referred as 'the respondent') filed a compaint under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. before the Gram Panchayat, Kotla Chillian, against the revisionist opening the path blocked by the revisionist by way of stacking bricks and it was very difficult to pass through the path animals or even any dead-body. The Panchayat had referred the complaint to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., who sent the case file to the police. The Police, after investigation, prepared Kalandra and forwarded the same to the S.D.M. concerned, but the revisionist did not join the proceedings and despite the intervention of the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat and the police, the revision petitioner refused to open the path. The learned trial Magistrat passed the impugned order directing the parties to get the land comprised in Khata No.117, Khatoni No.120, Khasra No.71, measuring 2K-17M partitioned, which is stated to be "Gairmumkin Abadi" in which the complainant was having 1/4th share and revision petitioner is having 1/30 share and also directed the petitioner not to block the path and maintain peace till partition of the land.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitoner filed the present petition on the ground that the impugned orders are against the facts and law and based on surmises and conjectures and no path has been blocked by the revisionist, as there is alternative path available to the respondents on backside of the hosue of the petitioner, whereas the respondents are claiming path through his courtyard. The respondents have no right to claim path through his courtyard, hence, the impugned orders are unjust, unfair and the learned Magistrage has wrongly and illegally ordered the petitioner not to block the path.