RAMOTAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. petition has been field on behalf of the accused petitioners in Criminal Case No. 36/84 Beharilal vs. Ramotar pending in court of the Addititonal Chief Judical Magistrate, Neem-ka-Thana with prayer to quash the proceedings pending against them.

(2.) THERE is a chequered history of litigation between the parties in the instant case as is borne out from the complaint it self. The complainant non petitioner's case starts with the compliant filed on 28. 02. 1983 for an incident alleged to have taken place on 16th February. 1983 wherein the complainant stated that in Neem-ka-thana town, he owned a half constructed shop near Kapilmurti in Kapil Mandi Adjecent to his shop of Gyarsilal, which is on rent with Ramotar accused, is situated. About this half constructed shop, a suit was filed by plaintiff against Gyarsilal and Ramotar for permanent injunction wherein accused No. 1 filed a reply to the effect that land belongs to Gyarsilal and on this a docree was obtained on 6. 05. 1976. THEREafter, on 28. 12. 1977. Ramotar trespassed into the shop, damaged and removed the debries for which the complainant Prabhulal filed a report before the Police on which the accused persons were charge-sheeted for offence u/ss. 147, 448, 427 and 379, IPC. Again there was some litigation as Gyarsilal placed hurdles and Ramotar raised some objections which were dismssed on 22-12-1976. THERE was yet another complaint filed for offence under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC where in a charge-sheet was filed against Ramotar by the Police. One more objection of the execution of the decree was raised by Ramotar on 1-8-1977 which too was rejected. Ramotar, however, with the connivance of the Administrator, Municipal Board. Neem-ka-thana wrongfully obtained a patta and raised yet another objection on that strength which too was rejected on 15-10-1980. The Patta was obtained by playing fraud in conspiracy with the Administrator, Municipal Board for which also a criminal case is going on against the accused and the Administrator. It was thee alleged in the complaint that all the accused, who are eight in number, in pursuance of common object and by hatching a conspiracy decided to cause damage to the shop and that in case the complainant interferses, he may be done to death. Complainant on 10th Feb. , 1983 moved the Dy. S, P. and on subsequent day the S. D. M. , Neem-ka-thana but no action was taken, therefore he phoned to the Superintendent of Police, Sikar than personally met him at Sikar on 18th Feb. , 1983 who in turn told him that he had phoned to the Dy. S. P. to get the shop attached in proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. but still nothing was done. On the same day the accused persons entered the shop damaged the shop in as much as even the slabs which were there in the shop were broken by spades. They took away the broken pieces of the stones slabs amounting to Rs. 200/- with them. Total loss was calculated by the complainant Rs: 1000/ -. He explained the delay by stating that on 14th, 15th, 16. 02. 1983 complainant went to Jaipur and when he returned, he met the Police but the Police went on deferring the matter and when he found that nothing is being done thereafter, he filed this complaint. This complaint was filed for offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 447, and 379/120-B, IPC. Along with this complaint, the complainant filed seven docu-ments which included the original Patta issued on 20-8-1961 in his favour, sale deed in favour of Gyarsi Lal dated 1-5-1963, photostat copy of the certificate issued by the Municipal Board date 10-12-1976, copy of the written-statements dated 24-9-1960 and 2-5-1963, copy of the decree dated 9-5-1976 and the site plan dated 1-3-1983. The complainant was registered and statements of Gyarsilal and complanant Beharilal were recorded. The learned Magistrate after recording the statements directed the case to be registered for offences under sections 448 and 427, IPC vide his order dated 4. 04. 1984. Accused persons thereafter moved an application on 14. 11. 1984 that the order taking cognizance against them is an erroneous order and therefore it should be revoked and proceedings be dropped. A reply was filed to this application on 23. 01. 1985. Learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence under section 448, IPC only against accused Ramotar, Kailash and Bhanwar, petitioners before this Court and dismissed the complaint under section 203. Cr. P. C. against rest of the accused persons. It is thereafter that the present petition has been submitted before this Court.

(3.) FIRST coming to scope of Section 482, Cr. P. C. suffice it to say that the cases cited by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered by me in detail in case of Vimla Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Misc. Petition No. 175/88 (4) decided on 7-10-1988 where in the entire scope has been considered. After due consideration I laid down the parameters within which the petitioner has to bring his case for interference by this Court. The parmeters laid down are as under : (i) When the FIRST Information Report, even if accepted as true, discloses no reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable offence; or there is a complete bar for taking cognizance in the manner prescribed ; i (ii) When the materials subsequently collected in the course of an investigation further disclose no such cognizable offence at all ; (iii) When the continuation of such investigation would amount to an abuse of power by the police thus necessitating interfence in the ends of justice; and (iv) That even if the FIRST Information or its subsequent investigation purports to raise suspicion of a cognizable offence, the High Court can still quash if it is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised malafide. While examining the case in light of the aforesaid I am of the opinion that for securing the ends of justice it would be essential to quash these proceedings here and now for the simple reason that for 28 years the parties have been fighting in criminal courts and the total amount of damage shown in the complaint is Rs 100/ -. Continuing criminal proceedings for such petty matters is not only a personal loss of time, money and energy of the party but is a cruel encroachment upon the right of the honest litigants in the Court whose cases are not heard for want of time. In the instant case, I have already staled in the case two of the complaints filed the complaint was dismissed, while civil proceedings and one criminal complaint filed by Gyarsi Lal is pending. I would not like to burden the subordinate court with one more litigation in the instant case by sending this case again for re-trial assuming that the complaintant has a case on merits. There is already a civil litigation pending about the disputed property and otherwise also the fate of this case would depend upon the fate of the civil case because proceedings of criminal case are always co-terminus in proceedings of civil case in the Court in case the subject matter is same. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that it is essential to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court that such a complaint which essentially is also of civil nature and where the civil case is already pending, the petition deserves to be allowed.