Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Parkash (Since Deceased) Through ... vs Sucha Singh Alias Kala And Others on 18 March, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038715
CRM-M-15021-2017 #1# 2024:PHHC:038715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-15021-2017
Date of Decision:-18.03.2024
Ram Parkash (since deceased) through Taro Devi.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
Sucha Singh & Ors.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The Prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for
setting aside the order dated 16.11.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar vide which the revision petition filed
against the order dated 30.01.2013 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint came to
be instituted at the instance of the petitioner/complainant with the allegations
against respondents/accused no.1 & 2 that on 11.01.2005 both the accused
had wrongfully and illegally entered into the property of the complainant
bearing Khasra No.49 and had dismantled the wall which was being raised
by the complainant at a particular point in the proposed room.
3. After leading of the preliminary evidence, the
respondents/accused nos.1 & 2 came to be summoned to face trial under
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038715
CRM-M-15021-2017 #2# 2024:PHHC:038715
Section 427 and 506 IPC. Ultimately the respondents/accused no.1 & 2
were discharged by the court of SDJM, Anandpur Sahib vide order dated
30.01.2013 (Annexure P-2).
4. A revision petition was preferred against the said order of
discharge which came to be dismissed by the court of Additional sessions
Judge, Anandpur Sahib vide judgment dated 16.11.2016 (Annexure P-4).
5. The aforementioned judgements are under challenge in the
present petition.
6. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the courts below
had committed a grave error of law while discharging the
accused/respondents nos.1 & 2 in the complaint filed by the
petitioner/complainant. The Courts below did not consider the fact that at the
time of framing of charges only a prima facie case was to be seen regarding
the offence having been committed and therefore, the charges ought to have
been framed. The Courts had erroneously examined the evidence in detail
without putting the accused to trial and had discharged them. In fact the
respondents/accused had dismantled the wall belonging to the
petitioner/complainant and the ownership of the area was well proved by
him. Information had also been given to the police which did not take action
in accordance with law and because of which a complaint had to be
instituted. He, therefore, contends that the impugned orders were liable to
be set aside and the respondents/accused were liable to be chargesheeted in
accordance with law.
7. I have heard learned learned Counsel for the petitioner.
8. A perusal of the record would reveal that the material
documents in the complaint are the sale deeds in favour of the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038715
CRM-M-15021-2017 #3# 2024:PHHC:038715
petitioner/complainant, copies of jamabandies of Khasra nos.51, 52 & 49
along with aks shijra of those khasra numbers. The claim of the
petitioner/complainant that he was in possession of the Bachat land
measuring 5/6 marlas is not borne out from the record as he has not
produced any such document showing possession. An inquiry report dated
26.09.2005 was prepared by the investigating agency as per which it had
been found that the accused had not demolished any wall. In fact the site
plan produced on record had no evidentiary value as it had not been based
on admissible documents. The alleged occurrence is dated 11.01.2005 and
the instant complaint came to be filed only on 21.04.2005. This inordinate
unexplained delay creates serious doubt in the case of the
petitioner/complainant, moreso when a civil suit is pending against the
respondents/accused no.1 & 2 at the instance of the petitioner/complainant
and the possibility of institution of the instant complaint to take advantage in
the civil suit cannot be ruled out.
9. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and
the same stands dismissed.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
March 18, 2024
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
