BALU RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application u/sec. 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order of cognizance taken by the learned Addl. C. J. M. Merta against Bala Ram, Baksha Ram, Purkha Ram Sons of Puna Ram, Puna Ram son of Suja Ram, Kamludi daughter of Puna Ram and Chothudi wife of Bala Ram for the offences u/ss. 147, 436, 379 and 447 r/w 149 IPC dated 3. 3. 1987. A revision was preferred against this order before the learned Distt. Judge which came to be decided vide his order dated 16. 03. 1990 whereby the revision petition was dispossed. of

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this field is in the joint Khata of Radhey Shyam and Ramdev sons of Shri Nemi Chand Brahmin and Asu son of Shri Ganesh Ram Sad. Radhey Shyam and Ramdev are sons of Smt. Rameshwari complainant who is a widow of late Shri Nemi Chand. So far as Asu is concerned, he has sold his land to petitioner Bala Ram s/o Shri Puna Ram Jat and that fact is recorded in the Khasra Girdhawari of Samvat year 2037 to 2040 and Khatauni of smvat year 2039 which are there on the record. Thus, when it is a case of joint Khata then no cognizance against the accused persons can be taken u/s. 447 because a co-sharer has a right to visit every inch of the land which is in the joint Khata. To this extent, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be sustained. It was next contended by him that after the hut was burnt, it is alleged that about 15 males entered the field alongwith these two persons i. e. Bala Ram and Baksha Ram and they took away the entire crop. It has not been mentioned in the F. I. R. that ladies were also present there and this is clear from the written F. I. R. which has been lodged by Smt. Ramesrrwari. She has also not stated in her own statement that these ladies were there. It has only come in the evidence of Mst. Singari that these two ladies were there and it is against the F. I. R. which has been lodged after a day of the occurrence and, therefore, to this extent also, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be sustained. Even if the field was shared by both the parties, the petitioners had no right to take away the entire crop of that field or to burn the hutment of Smt. Rameshwari in which she was living with her sons Radhey Shyam and Ramdev and, therefore, cognizance against the petitioners except Mst. Kamludi and Chothudi has rightly been taken for the offences u/ss. 147, 436 and 379 IPC. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of the case, this petition partially succeeds the cognizance taken against all the accused petitioners for the offence u/s. 447 IPC is quashed. Likewise cognizance taken against Mst. Kamludi and Chothudi for the offence u/ss. 147, 436 and 379 IPC r/w 149 IPC also is quashed. THE rest of the order does not deserve any interference because although the other persons have not been named but it has been alleged that in all 15 persons came to the field to cut the crop.