OMSHANTI PARAMHANS DEO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner after notice to the Public Prosecutor.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 147, 447, 427/34, IPC and has ordered issue of proceess. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has filed a false complaint and has abused the process of the court by producing false witnesses and getting the case registered and prosess issued. He urged that a revenue case under Section 188 Tenancy Act was filed by the petitioner Omshanti Paramhans Dev against the complainant Brij Kishore for permanent injunction. That suit was decreed on 17 -4 -1985 and that decree had become final. It has been found in that suit that the plaintiff Omshanti Parmhans was in the cultivatory possession of khasra No. 950/ - measuring one Bigha and the defendant Brij Kishore was threatening to dispossess the plaintiff. All the issues arising in the suit were found in favour of the plaintiff and consequently the plaintiffs suit was decreed and the defendant was restrained permanently from interfering in the plaintiff's possession. Besides that the land was also demarcated on 14 -10 -1986 under the orders of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate in the presence of the complainant Brij Kishore. In view of these facts it has been falsely alleged that the land was in possession of the complainant and damage has been caused to the complainant's standing crop. On 14 -10 -1986 what was done was only demarcation of the land by the Patwari under the orders of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate. Had these facts been brought to the knowledge of the learned Magistrate, cognizance would not have been taken by him and no process could have been issued but the complainant deliberately withholding the necessary facts in the Court instituted a complaint based on false allegations. This Court in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr. PC cannot permit such a state of affairs, where the complainant has abused the process of the Court and ends of justice require that the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed.