JOGINDER SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Revision under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of Order dated 18th of November, 2015 passed by the learned Munsiff, Samba in File No. 137-A/Misc titled 'Joginder Singh v. Balbir Singh & anr' by virtue of which the original complaint as well as the protest petition preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case on hand are that the petitioner had preferred an application/complaint before the learned trial court on 18th of June, 2014 for invoking the powers under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and had sought the registration of the FIR against the respondents for the commission of several offences. It is relevant to state that upon the receipt of the application above referred, the learned trial Court forwarded the same in original to Police Station, Vijaypur for investigation under law. It is further submitted that consequent upon the passing of order dated 18.06.2014, the application preferred by the petitioner was handed over to the concerned Police agency. But, despite the fact that some of the offences alleged in the application were cognizable, no FIR was registered despite clear directions by the learned trial Court. However, the concerned SHO by not registering FIR had shown a favourable bent in favour of the respondents and had not investigated the matter fairly and impartially. It is stated that a report was submitted before the trial court by the concerned SHO exonerating the respondents of all the offences alleged against them. The petitioner being aggrieved of the same preferred a protest petition, which came to be accepted by the learned trial court vide order dated 9th February, 2015 and as a consequence thereof the learned trial court directed the superior officer viz. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Vijaypur to conduct a detailed inquiry in the matter in the light of the averments made in the original application preferred under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is further submitted that despite the fact that the matter was referred to SDPO, Vijaypur by virtue of order dated 9th of February 2015, the concerned official did not proceed in the mater and no report was submitted by the concerned police official till the petitioner was constrained to prefer the separate application seeking the status report as well as initiation of contempt proceedings against SDPO, Vijapur. It is submitted that after the learned trial court initiated coercive process against the SDPO, the report of inquiry was submitted by the SDPO concerned. It is relevant to state here that against the aforesaid report also another protest petition was preferred by the petitioner before the learned trial Court. It is submitted that in the protest petition the petitioner categorically highlighted that SDPO Vijaypur has deliberately included the family members as well as relatives of the respondents. It is also quite relevant to state here that even the SDPO concerned did not register the FIR and there after proceeded ahead in terms of the mandate of law. However, the SDPO Vijaypur instead has entered into a roving inquiry in the title of the parties over the land measuring 3 kanals 14 marlas falling under Khasra No. 463 and that too by involving the revenue agency. It is further submitted that despite the fact that there were serious lapses, both factual as well as legal, in the enquiry, the learned trial court accepted the enquiry report by virtue of the order impugned and as such the same is assailed through the medium of the instant revision petition on the following amongst other grounds:

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.