RANA RAMDEO SINGH Vs. RAM BALI MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 9.7.1997 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in S.T. No. 860/93 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for their discharge under section 227 of the Code and holding that the materials collected during the police investigation go to show that a prima facie case under sections 436 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the petitioners were not entitled to discharge.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the father and uncle of the informant had entered into an agreement for the sale of land with the petitioners bearing Plot No. 1806, Khata No. 371 and executed an agreement (Baibeyana) for sale in favour of petitioner no. 3 on 18.7.1980. In view of this Baibeyana deed the petitioner came in peaceful possession of the land to be vended to them. Since, however, the father and uncle of the informant did not execute the sale deed on repeated requests the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 50/84 for specific performance of contract. On this the informant created trouble over this land resulting in a proceeding under section 144 of the Code. It was subsequently converted into a proceeding under section 145 of the Code [Case No. 235(M)/84], when during the pendency of this proceeding the opposite party no. 2 tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over this land and order under section 146 of the Code was passed on 3.9.1991 by which the learned court called for a report from Shri. D. Bhagat, Executive Magistrate who submitted his report. The learned Magistrate in seisin of the case appointed the Block Development Officer, Patna Sadar as receiver of the disputed property. Subsequently by his order dated 7.8.1992 the learned court appointed the Officer In -charge of Patliputra police station as their receiver in place of Block Development Officer, Sadar Patna. The opposite party preferred Cr. Revision No. 648/91 against the order passed under section 146 of the Code which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) WHEN the opposite party felt that he will be prosecuted for the disobedience of courts order he filed Patliputra P. S. Case No. 26/93 against the petitioner in which it was alleged that when at 10.30 P.M. on 13.2.1993 the informant had gone to attend the call of nature the present petitioners threw water on him and on his protest they abused and assaulted him, set fire to his house as a result of which his property worth Rs. 20,000/ - was burnt. The police after instituting the case under sections 436 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code visited the alleged place of occurrence. It will appear from the police report that the police did not find the dwelling house in existence at the alleged place of occurrence. The hutment in question was under the receivership of the Officer -in -charge, Patliputra police station and no occurrence as alleged had taken place. The petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned court below without appreciating the facts wrongly rejected the petition for discharge filed under section 227 of the Code. This order of the learned court below is wrong in law and against the facts of the case. On these grounds amongst others it has been contended that the impugned order be quashed.