SHIVA SHEKHAR DWARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that late Ashutosh Dwary was the Mul Raiyat of Mouza-Narayanpur, P.S.-Jasidih, District-Deoghar. After his death, petitioner no. 1 being eldest son of late Ashutosh Dwary filed an application before the S.D.O. Deoghar for his appointment as Mul Raiya Pradhan. That prayer was objected by some of the persons including the complainant, in spite of the fact that a report had been submitted before the court of Circle Officer that the petitioner no. 1 happens to be the heir and legal representative of late Ashutosh Dwary. However, accused persons including the complainant got a report placed before the S.D.O. said to have been issued by the Circle officer wherein it was reported that petitioner no. 1 is not competent to be appointed as Mul Raiya Pradhan but that report was manufactured one as it had never been issued by the Circle Officer. The S.D.O. though accepted the report of the Circle Officer filed in favour of the petitioner no. 1 but passed an order that the petitioner no. 1 is not competent to be appointed as Mul Raiyat/Pradhan. Against that order, this petitioner preferred appeal before the D.C. Deoghar. The D.C. Deoghar having taken into account all the facts and circumstances including the report submitted by the Circle Officer in favour of the petitioner no. 1 did declare that the petitioner no. 1 is competent to be appointed as Mul Raiyat/Pradhan. That order was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner by the complainant but that application got dismissed.

(2.) It was further submitted that while the aforesaid matter was pending adjudication, an application was filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for holding enquiry. After holding enquiry, S.D.O. did find that the complainant and others had submitted forged report of Circle Officer. In spite of that, S.D.O. did not file any complain. Therefore, the petitioner did file complaint bearing P.C.R. case no. 53 of 2007 on 17.1.2007 alleging therein about the commission of offence of forgery by the complainant and other four persons. Initially over that complaint, cognizance of the offence was taken on 3.1.2009 for an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, though no such offence had been alleged. Therefore, the petitioner had to move before the revisional court who passed an order directing the court to go for further enquiry. Thereupon cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 109, 196, 193, 166, 465, 466, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code was taken on 21.4.2009.

(3.) It was further submitted that on coming to know about filing of P.C.R. case no. 53 of 2007, the complainant did file complaint bearing Complaint Case No. 981 of 2007 on 12.12.2007 alleging therein that when the petitioner made his intention clear that the complainant would be dispossessed from the land, it was objected by the complainant, upon which petitioner no. 1 who happens to be quite old and even petitioner no. 2, a handicapped person were alleged to have assaulted the complainant. Upon which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 323, 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which is under challenge.