YUDHISHTHIR ROY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the F.I.R. drawn in connection with Deoghar P.S. Case No. 109 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 341 of 2005 for the offence alleged against the petitioner under Sections 406/420/452 and 188 I.P.C. pending before the C.J.M., Deoghar and further quashment of the entire criminal proceeding commenced on the basis of such F.I.R.

(2.) THE fact of the case as stands narrated in the written report of the informant S.D.O., Deoghar presented before the Officer -in -Charge of Town Police Station, Deoghar as per information received from one Kishore Singh was that the petitioner Yudhishthir Roy was raising boundary wall over town plot No. 1231A at Mauza Khoradah within Deoghar Circle with the intention to usurp the land. On such information a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated giving rise to Criminal Misc. No. 572 of 2004 between the parties over 8 kathas of land and both were called upon to show their causes. Nevertheless, in course of the proceeding, it was informed by Kishore Singh on 7.12.2004 that in spite of prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. over the land in question, the work of construction of boundary wall was being done by the petitioner Yudhishthir Roy. The Officer -in -Charge of Deoghar Police Station was directed and in compliance to that the construction work, which was being done on the disputed plot was stopped. It was further stated in the written report that Circle Officer, Deoghar, when called upon, reported that town plot No. 1231A was a Gochar land (grazing land) pertaining to survey plot No. 236 having area of 4.92 acre and by concealing the fact that the said land was in the nature of Gochar land, it was settled by Roheni Ghatwal in favour of Tripurari Rout and that the petitioner Yudhishthir Roy claimed that the said land was obtained by him but no document was produced by the petitioner to substantiate his claim over the land. It was reported by the Circle Officer that the petitioner had encroached the said land and he had no valid paper. It was clarified by the Circle Officer that there was no provision for the settlement of Gochar land by authority and if at all any part thereof is settled, would tantamount to illegal settlement which was barred. The informant Sub -Divisional Officer, Deoghar alleged that in spite of removal of encroachment at earlier occasions by the Officer -in -Charge, Deoghar under the supervision of Circle Officer, Deoghar from the land in question, the petitioner had constructed a pucca boundary as well as a room thereon by again encroaching upon the Gochar land being the disputed plot and the encroachment was finally removed pursuant to the direction of the informant vide memo No. 194/Go, Deoghar dated 27.3.2005. The informant alleged that the petitioner had encroached the Gochar land forcibly against a document alleged to be forged in spite of the proceeding upon the said land under Section 144 Cr.P.C. restraining the parties from going upon the said land and thereby the petitioner usurped the land which was valued at Rs. 6070 lakhs.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner was that the S.D.M., Sadar Deoghar by the order dated 27.12.1999 directed for demarcation of Plot No. 1232A on the petition of one Tripurari Rout in course of the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. on his claim that he had obtained the said land on 10.02.1954 from Ghatwal Roheni Estate and since then he was in possession over the land in question and was making up -to date payment of rent. Pursuant to the order of demarcation as passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Deoghar the Anchal Amin by his report dated 01.12.1999 stated in Revenue Misc. Case No. 108/1999 -2000 that the Plot No. 1232A measuring 1 Bigha and 5 Katha was settled in the name of Tripurari Rout by the landlord of Roheni Estate on 10.02.1954 and that he was paying rent to the State Government after his name was mutated. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the said Tripurari Rout and the latter executed a deed of lease dated 26.12.2002 whereby said Tripurari Rout permitted the petitioner to use the plot No. 1232A as play -ground for the children of Red Rose School and that the said lease was granted to the petitioner for a period of 30 years on the monthly rent of Rs. 500/ -and therefore, under the circumstances in any event, no offence was made out against the petitioner Yudhishthir Roy much less for the alleged offence under Sections 406/420/452/188 I.P.C. as he was in possession as lessee.