JAI SINGH Vs. BALDEV RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by the petitioner challenging order dtd. 22/12/2012 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kathua ['the trial Court'] whereby the trial Court has discharged the respondents herein in case File No. 14/Sessions under Ss. 204A/467/109 RPC.

(2.) This petition was filed in this Court somewhere in the beginning of year 2013 and has been pending ever since. Earlier, Mr. G.S.Thakur, learned counsel represented the petitioner. However, later on, as is recorded in the order dtd. 28/9/2021, he made a statement before this Court that his client has taken away the brief from him. As a result, this Court put the petitioner on notice to appear in the Court. On 29/10/2021, when the case came up for consideration, this Court noticed that the petitioner had been served, but did not appear and the matter was kept a waiting for appearance of the petitioner in the interest of justice. Today also, when the case was called, neither the petitioner, nor his counsel appeared, and therefore, the matter was considered in their absence.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts, as are gatherable form the impugned order, are that, on 27/5/1995, the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of learned CJM, Kathua against the respondents, fourteen in number, alleging fabrication and destruction of revenue record pertaining to land comprised in Survey Nos. 165, 166, 167, 168, 172 and 173 situate at village Chak Ram, Kathua. The allegation of mutilating and destruction of revenue record was made against the three revenue officials i.e, Baldev Raj, Subash Chander and Paras Ram. It may be noted that Baldev Raj has died during the pendency of this revision petition. The allegation was that these revenue officials in connivance with private respondents had mutilated the revenue record and a wrongful entry pertaining to kharief 1971 was made in favour of the private respondents, thus, facilitating the revenue officials to attest the mutations under Sec. 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. The CJM, Kathua took cognizance of the complaint, but postponed the issuance of process and directed an enquiry into the matter, to be made by S.P Kathua in terms of Sec. 202 Cr.PC. On receipt of enquiry report of S.P Kathua, the CJM, Kathua issued process against the accused for offences under Sec. 193/204/204A/467/120/34 RPC. This was challenged by the respondents before this Court and the enquiry conducted by ASI under the directions of S.P Kathua was set aside and the order passed by the CJM taking cognizance against the respondents was quashed and the matter remanded back for fresh consideration.