Allahabad High Court
Ram Narayan @ Narayan vs State Of U.P. & 10 Others on 1 May, 2014
Bench: Amar Saran, Kalimullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 296 of 2013
Applicant :- Ram Narayan @ Narayan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 10 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- M.P. Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon'ble Kalimullah Khan,J.
This application under section 372 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Ram Narayan, the first informant of the case for leave to appeal against a judgement and order dated 12.7.2013 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No. 3, Deoria whereby he has acquitted all the accused-respondents in ST No. 26 of 2003 under section 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The first informant Ram Narayan is a Lekhpal. He has claimed that the land in dispute is his Bhumidhari land, which contains Arazi Nos. 72, 73 and 74. According to the prosecution allegation the part of the said land has been possessed by the accused-respondents. In order to prove his case the complainant has examined himself as PW 1 and another Lekhpal Ram Ashish Chauhan as PW 2. The basis of the suit was that in pursuance of an oral order of Tehsildar concerned, PW 2, Ram Ashish Chauhan submitted his report that some part of the aforesaid Arazi Nos. 72, 73 and 74 of the first informant are actually in possession of respondents.
After perusal of the record, the Trial Court recorded a finding of acquittal acquitting all the aforesaid respondents on the grounds that the matter is of purely civil nature and in fact the first informant has admittedly instituted a civil suit No. 1354 of 1988 before the civil court for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. Initially interim injunction was granted to him, but the said order was challenged before the court of revision. Meanwhile, the suit was disposed of on merits decreeing the suit in his favour and the judgement and order decreeing the suit has been challenged in civil appeal, which is pending for adjudication. Apart from it, a criminal proceeding was also launched on the same set of fact in the criminal court, which was dismissed.
According to the opinion of the Trial Court the proper remedy is available to the informant before the revenue court, but there is no evidence on record that the applicant-complainant ever approached the revenue court for the relief sought for. The first informant, PW 1 has stated in his evidence that plot Nos. 72 and 73 have now been converted into Abadi land, whereas PW 2 Ram Ashish Chauhan has stated that he has no authority to make measurements of the aforesaid plots and to submit the report. No report in writing is available and the report is based on the direction of Tehsildar to PW 2 Ram Ashish Chauhan to submit his report.
The Commissioner's report relied on by the first informant speaks that the informant is not in possession of the disputed land.
The aforesaid reasoning given in recording a finding of acquittal are based on the evidence on record led by the prosecution itself.
Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 reads as under:
"Wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water."
Admittedly, no date and time has been mentioned for the dispossession of the applicant/informant from the land in suit. It does not appear to be a case of wrongful dispossession of a member of a SC or ST, rather it is a case of taking back an old possession wrongfully in preference to the appropriate law applicable. If the civil litigation is pending between the parties then the informant should wait for the final result. The short cut way sought to be applied should be discouraged and the criminal powers cannot be exercised in such a matter to circumvent the settled principle established by law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the application for leave to appeal is refused. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.5.2014
Ishrat
