JAWAHAR LAL VISWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr PC has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.5.2003 passed in Cr. Revision No. 86/2003 by which learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioners under Section 245, Cr PC.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that the complainant -opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint petition stating therein that on 21.6.1997 at about 4 p.m. he came to place of occurrence, which is Khata No. 40, plot No. 51, Mauja Baramajiya and saw that one Sisam tree, standing on the said plot, has been cut down and the accused -petitioners were present there with deadly weapons. The complainant -opposite party No. 2 made a protest whereupon accused -petitioners abused him and threatened to assault. The complainant reported the matter to the police and the police came to the place of occurrence and saw the Sisam tree cut on the said plot and police assured the complainant to take legal action against the accused persons and due to assurance of police as well as marriage of his nephew on 27.6.1997, the complainant went home and after marriage he came to the police station but he was asked to go to S.P. and then he went to S.P. who told him that said cut Sisam tree has been seized. When complainant came to know that no FIR has been lodged then he filed a complaint petition on 1.7.1997, which was registered as complaint case No. 200/97. Complainant was examined on S.A. and thereafter the learned Court below took cognizance of offence under Section 379, IPC and issued summons. The petitioners appeared in the Court and filed application for discharge but their prayer for discharge was rejected.

(3.) IT will be clear from the evidence of complainant 'switnesses that land in question never belongs to alleged vendor Ramchandra Bhadani, rather it belongs to C.H. Pvt. Ltd. and further that there is no mention of Sisam Tree in the sale deed of 1988 said to have been executed by Ramchandra Bhadani in favour of Sunanda Devi and Manju Devi and, therefore, the entire case of the complainant stands falsified. Further, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners. It was also pointed out that for the same P.O. land, complainant had earlier filed Complaint Case No. 348 of 1992 against some accused persons and the case ultimately ended in acquittal and this shows that the complainant is in the habit of filing the complaint case.