JIWACHCH PRASAD SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Cods of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code. It is direcied against the order dated 30-4-1988/21-5-1988 passeed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in TR Case No. 1144 of 1988 taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under Sections 147, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. This order of cognizance (Annexure-3) was passed on the basis of the charge-sheet (Annexure-2) submitted by the Police on the FIR (Annexure-1) lodged by the opposite panv No. 2 The allegations against the petitioners were that at about 8 to 9 A. M. on 25-11-1987 they forcebly harvested and removed the standing paddy crops belonging to opposite party No 2 and at that time they were variously armed with weapons. Opposite party No 2 was put to a loss of Rs. 300/-.

(2.) From this petition it appears that there was a land dispute concerning plot No 496 (old), 741 (New) measuring 3 khatas which was recorded as Bakast Mallik under Tauji No. 1107 of Village Harishankar Pur Saghauni P.S. Tajpur. According to ths petitioners they had purchased this land in the year 1930 and in revisional survey the purcha with respect to this land was granted in their favour. As against it the case of opposite party No. 2 was that this land, alongwith other lands, was purchased by him on 1-9-1973 and since then he was in its possession by growing crops over the same On 25-11-1987 at about 8 to 9 AM, ths petitioners variously armed with deadly weapon came over the disputed land and forcebly harvested aod removed the standing paddy crops worth Rs 300/-. Accordingly, the FIR (Aonexure-1) was lodged. The police after completing investigations, submitted charge-sheet (Annexure-2) against the present petitioners. By ths impugned order cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioners. It is against this order that the petitioners have made a grievance.

(3.) They have conteudsd that the perusul of the FIR would show that the informant himself was not an eye witness. The allegation of deadly weapon is quite vague. Similarly vague is the allegation in the FIR about the patiiioaers joining in unlawful assembly. There is no allegation to constitute an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Even the address of the witnesses have not been given. There has been delay of six hours in lodging the FIR.