JHUNTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 Crimial P.C. is directed against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sri Madhopur dated 29.7.89 framing charge against the accused-petitioners for offences under section 120-B, 467, 471 and 420 IPC.

(2.) This case has a chequered history a .d present facts exhibit as to how the mockery of justice is being made by dragging the parties into criminal cases.

(3.) In village Khandala, there are two agricultural lands adjoining each other, one bearing khasra No. 845 and another 846 A strange co-incidence is that the khatedar tenants of both these Khasras happened to bear the same name viz., Ruda and their fathers names have a phonetic similarity. The Khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 845 is Ruda son of Deva while that of Khasra No. 846 is Ruda s/o Mahadeva. Ruda s/o Mahadeva agreed to execute a sale-deed regarding in his law in favour of petitioner Jhuntha for a sum of Rs. 4 000.00 and accordingly, a sale-deed was executed on 19-2-75 which was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sri Madhopur. It appears that the Patwari either inadvertently or otherwise wrongly intimated the parties and the Khasra number entered into the registered deed was 845 instead of 846, though the parentage written was correct. Not only this the Patwari did the mutation also in the revenue record accordingly in respect of Khasra No. 845. Parties, having realised their mistakes, filed revenue suits for correction. The petitioner filed the suit against Ruda s/o Mahadeva in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Neem-ka-Thana on 28 8-78 being revenue suit No. 162/78 resulting in a compromise decree dated 17-3-79. The decree was to the effect that the declaration was made to the effect that Khasra No. 846 measuring 11 bighas and 2 biswas in village Khandala is in cultivatory possession of the petitioner and he is the Khatedar tenant of the said land. As the mutation was wrongly done, Ruda s/o Deva filed an appeal against the older of mutation in the same court i. e. the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Neem-ka-Thana against the petitioner. The said appeal was also compromised on 17th March, 1979 i.e. the same day in which the earlier suit was compromised. Ruda s/o Deva Ram continued to be the Khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 845 and petitioner Jhuntha is in cultivators possession of Khasra No. 846. Thus, all the mistakes, deliberate or otherwise, committed in the past came to be settled on 17.3.79. It is interesting to note that before the suit was compromised, Ruda s/o Deva Ram had filed a criminal complaint on 17-1-79 in the court of M.J M., Sri Madhopur, which was forwarded on the same day to police for investigation under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P C. Though, the compromise was arrived at and filed before the concerned authorities, yet the police filed a charge-sheet against Jhuntha and Ruda s/o Mahadeva for offences u/Secs., 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance also against Jawaharn and Nayab Tehsildar, Madan Singh, Girdawar Khandala and Kishoii Lal Patwari Khandala vide order dated 26-3-81. They challenged the order of cognizance before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem-ka-Thana, who quashed the same vide order dated 28-5-87. But the petitioner and Ruda s/o Mahadeva continued to face the criminal litigation. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 29-7-89 framed the aforesaid charges against both the accused and the petitioner has challenged the same in this Court.