RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJATHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner - Ram Lal seeking quashing of the FIR No. 222/2011, registered against him at Police Station Kapasan, District Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 448, 427 IPC and Section 3(10) of the SC/ST Act. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of these two petitions are set out here -in -below.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for seeking temporary injunction against the respondent No. 2, who is the complainant herein with a prayer that the respondent No. 2 should be restrained from raising construction over the land claimed to be a part of the approach road for going to the house of the petitioner. The said application was filed by the petitioner in the court of learned Munsif Magistrate, Kapasan being suit No. 50/2008. The learned trial Court by order dated 7.5.2008 appointed a Commissioner for inspection of the premises, who after the site inspection submitted his report to the Court and the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect to the dispute property pending disposal of the application for temporary injunction. The finding, which the learned trial Court arrived at was that there exists a road in the southern side of the petitioner's house and that the patta relied upon by the respondent No. 2 bore interpolations. The trial Court also found that the Panchayat has no authority to issue patta over the land which was a part of the public way. Accordingly, the learned trial Court passed a temporary injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 from creating any obstruction in the petitioner's access to his house through the disputed land. The order of status quo was passed on 20.5.2008 and thereafter, the respondent No. 2 filed an FIR bearing No. 261/2008 on 18.6.2008 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, which was thoroughly investigated by the police and the police after investigation came to the conclusion that the FIR filed by the respondent No. 2 was false and accordingly a negative FR was submitted which was accepted by the Court concerned. The temporary injunction passed by the Court below was confirmed on 30th July, 2008, against which, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal, which too as dismissed on 21st November, 2008. The respondent No. 2 challenged the said proceedings by way of a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 866/2009 titled as "Narayan & Anr. vs. Ram Lal", which came to be decided by this Court on 19th August, 2010. This Court while deciding the aforesaid writ petition has observed as under;

(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Sudhir Saruparia appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that ex -facie the allegations of the complainant as set out in the FIR impugned do not disclose any offence whatsoever and as such the FIR in is entirety deserves to be quashed. He further submits that as a matter of fact the complainant is in habit of filing such false FIRs and that earlier also the similar FIR was filed in the year 2008 after the injunction order was passed. The said FIR was investigated and found to be false by the police. It is submitted that earlier the complainant has failed in his attempt to implicate the petitioner, in a false case in relation to the same property and now the fact of demolition under the directions of the civil court is being tried to be misused by filing the present FIR. It has been further submitted that the conduct of the complainant has been noted by this Court in the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 866/2009 titled as "Narayan & Anr. vs. Ram Lal" and despite the finding of the civil court as upheld by this Court regarding the patta of the complainant being forged, the FIR has been filed by making false allegation that the property in question was owned by the complainant by virtue of the so called patta, whereas, he fact remains that the property is not of he complainant and is thee part of public way. It has further been submitted that ex -facie the offence under Section 3(10) of the SC/ST Act is not made out as the alleged abuses were not given to the complainant or his son at a place within the public view and thus the ingredients of offence under Section 3(10) of the SC/ST act are not made out from the admitted allegations of the prosecution. It has further been submitted that since the property in question does not belong to the complainant rather was constructed in total contempt of the civil court's injunction, on the access road to the petitioners house, therefore, there is no question of commission of offence under Section 448 IPC from the allegations of the complainant. It has also been submitted that the demolition of the property was carried out under the directions of the Court and was done by the Assistant Nazir of the Court, therefore, the offence under Section 427 IPC would not be made out ex -facie. Thus, it has been submitted that the FIR has been lodged as a malafide counter blast and for wreaking vengeance and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.