ARVIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner Arvind Singh seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 364/2012 registered at P.S. Sumerpur for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 427, 143 and 435 I.P.C.

(2.) The complainant Bhanwar Singh filed F.I.R. an at Police Station Sumerpur on 27.10.2012 with the allegations that he and his family members are in possession of land bearing Khasra nos. 94, 106, 107 to 117 measuring 8.77 hectares since the time of their ancestors. They were in cultivatory possession of the land since time immemorial. By error, the Khatedari of the land in question was entered in the name of some Meghwals and one Chhogalal of Netra. They filed a suit for correction in the revenue entries. The persons belonging to Meghwal community undertook some proceedings for taking possession. The Government also made efforts to acquire the land in question which were challenged before the R.A.A. and the Revenue Board and the proceedings were quashed. It was alleged that Chhogalal in whose name 1/3rd of the land was erroneously entered in the revenue record sold it to Arvind Singh. Chhogalal was never in possession of the property in question. It was alleged that in the night previous to the filing of the F.I.R., Arvind Singh along with 20-25 other persons came to the field armed with weapons on two tractors and J.C.B. and assaulted the complainant, Dinesh Singh and Naring and set fire to the fencing surrounding the field. They wanted to take forcible possession of the land and well constructed on the same. The water pipelines which was installed on the field was also damaged. On this report, F.I.R. No. 364/2012 was registered at the Police Station Sumerpur for the aforementioned offences and investigation commenced.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the said F.I.R. by way of the instant misc. petition. Whilst considering the petition, on 22.1.2013, learned Public Prosecutor informed this Court that the police has filed charge sheet no. 305 before the learned trial court on 22.12.2012. In view of the aforesaid statement, the misc. petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. Thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application for restoration stating that the statement made by the learned Public Prosecutor was incorrect. It was claimed that the charge sheet was not filed in the trial court as mentioned by the Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted a factual report to this Court, as per which the charge sheet was actually presented in the trial Court but as the accused was not available on that day, the Court returned the same back to the I.O. By order dated 4.3.2014, this Court restored the misc. petition to its original number. The matter has been heard today on the question of admission.