HARI NARAIN SHARMA Vs. BHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, Hari Narain Sharma, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.9.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge allowed the revision petition filed by the accused non-petitioners, Bhanwar Lal and Ram Narayan, and set aside the order dated 5.7.1999 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur District, wherein the learned Magistrate had rejected the non-petitioners' application under Section 258 Cr.P.C. for dropping the criminal proceedings. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 3.11.1998, the petitioner lodged a FIR against the accused non-petitioners at Police Station Bagaru for offences under Sections 147, 447 and 427 IPC. In the FIR he had alleged that he is in possession of agricultural land in Khasra Nos. 165, 166, 167 and 168 situated in his village. He has two-third share in the above land. He had cultivated Gram in one and a half bigha, and Peas in another one and a half bigha. He further claimed that litigation is pending between him and the accused respondents. He further alleged that he has a stay order in his favour. However, according to him, Roop Narain, Bhairu Dutt, Om Prakash and Bhanwar Lal came in a tractor and destroyed the crops. On the basis of this information, a formal FIR was chalked out. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused non-petitioners for offences under Section 447 and 427 IPC. The learned trial Court took cognizance and summoned the accused non-petitioners.

(2.) The accused non-petitioners submitted an application under Section 258 Cr.P.C. According to them, they had bought the land in question through agreement to sell. Since the land was subsequently sold to the complainant, they had filed a civil suit for setting aside the sale-deed dated 27.4.1989 and the mutation dated 13.7.1998, which were both in favour of the complainant-petitioner, and for specific performance. Vide judgment and decree dated 7.5.1995 the Civil Court had allowed their suit ex-parte. On the basis of the said decree, on 29.7.1998, a mutation was opened in favour of the accused non-petitioners. They further claimed that they were in possession of the land. Therefore, the proceedings against them for offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC should be dropped.

(3.) The petitioner filed his reply to the said application. He contended that the judgment dated 7.5.1995 was passed ex-parte against him. As soon as he came to know that his sale-deed and the mutation have been cancelled, he immediately filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment. According to him, a stay was granted in his favour on 25.8.1998. Therefore, according to him, he was in possession of the land. Moreover, he had filed a case before the Additional Divisional Commissioner challenging the mutation dated 29.8.1998 which was opened in favour of the accused non-petitioners. Vide judgment dated 3.7.1999, the said mutation was set aside and the case was remanded back for fresh inquiry about the actual physical possession of the land in dispute.