SEWA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these criminal misc. petitions under section 482 Cr PC have been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.3, Hanumangarh (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr.Revision Petitions No.70/2008 and 129/2008, whereby the learned revisional court has allowed the revision petitions filed by the respondent No.2 and set aside the orders dated 05.08.2006 and 18.04.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in F.R. No.90/2001 and F.R. No.227/2000 respectively, whereby the learned trial court dismissed the protest petitions preferred by the respondents and accepted the final report submitted by the police.

(2.) Brief facts, necessary for disposal of these petitions, are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the trial court and claimed that a plot measuring about 50x80 feet belonging to his father is situated in Ward No.12 at Hanumangarh Junction. In that plot, respondent No.2 and his brothers Vijay Kumar and Chandra Shekhar are having equal shares. It is also stated that in respect of a shop measuring about 13x30 feet, which is part of the above mentioned plot, a civil dispute is going on between the respondent No.2 and the petitioners. It is further contended that on 04.05.2000, when the petitioner had visited the plot in question, he found that Gurnam Singh, his son, son's wife and two other labourers were constructing a toilet (Kui) on a part of the plot, which is falling out of the area of shop measuring 13x30 feet for which the civil suit is going on. It is stated by the respondent No.2 in the complaint that the petitioners had illegally encroached over the part of the plot, therefore, they committed offences punishable under sections 447, 451 and 420 IPC. The complaint was forwarded to the Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction, the police started investigation and after investigation, the negative final report was filed by the police, while concluding that the civil dispute is going on between the parties in respect of the property in question and, therefore, no offence as alleged by the respondent No.2 is made out against the petitioners.

(3.) Being aggrieved with this, the respondent No.2 preferred a protest petition before the learned trial court and the learned trial court vide order dated 18.04.2001 dismissed the said protest petition and accepted the final report submitted by the police.