SHAFIQ AHMAD QURESHI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dtd. 15/12/2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tangmarg, whereby he has been charged for offences under Sec. 379, 427, 447 RPC.

(2.) It appears that on 20/9/2014, respondent No.2 lodged a report with the police alleging therein that he is in possession of the land under Survey No.740 adjacent to Hotel Khalil Palace situated at Gulmarg whereas the petitioner is also in possession of the land adjacent to the aforesaid land of respondent No.2/complainant. It was further alleged that there is a long standing land dispute between the parties regarding which cases are pending adjudication before the Court at Tangmarg. It was alleged that on 19/9/2014, the petitioner trespassed into the land in possession of respondent No.2/complainant and he demolished the wooden hut that was constructed on the aforesaid land whereafter he also took away vehicle of the respondent No.2/complainant, which bears registration No.JK05C-3004. On the basis of this complaint, the police registered FIR No.26/2014 and started investigation of the case. after investigation of the case, offences under Sec. 379, 447, 427 RPC were found established against the petitioner and the challan was laid before the trial court. Vide the impugned order dtd. 15/12/2016, the learned trial court framed charges for offences under Sec. 379, 447, 427 RPC against the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of the learned trial court on the grounds that the material on record of the challan, even if taken at its face value, does not make out any offence against the petitioner; that the vehicle, which is alleged to have been stolen by the petitioner, does not belong to respondent No.2/complainant nor there is any material on record to show that the petitioner has removed the said vehicle from the possession of the respondent No.2/complainant; that the property in question regarding which offence of mischief and criminal trespass is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, belongs to one Prithvi Nath and not to respondent No.2/complainant, as such, no offence is made out against the petitioner and that respondent No.2/complainant is an influential person, who has misused the police machinery in order to harass the petitioner.