Dhyan Singh vs The State of Haryana, Hari Singh, Daya Nand, Ranjit Singh and Ombir Singh

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—Dhyan Singh petitioners has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 6.9.1994 (Annexure P-5) passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak as well as the order dated 26.10.1995 (Annexure P-7) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide order dated 6.9.1994 (Annexure P-5), the learned trial court discharged respondents No. 2 to 5- accused as it was found that on the basis of the material placed before the Court by the investigating agency, no charge could be framed against them. The said order was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 26.10.1995 (Annexure P-7).

In this case, the petitioner lodged FIR No. 193 dated 9.11.1993 against respondents No.2 to 5-accused under Sections 379/447/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging therein that they, after entering into his field bearing khasra No. 26/4/2 (7-7), demolished his kotha, took away the karies of the kotha with them and destroyed his Toria crops. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused. Thereafter, the case was fixed for framing the charge. The learned trial court discharged the aforesaid respondent-accused as it was found that as per the revenue documents, attached with the challan, they are in possession of the disputed field. It was also found that the said khasra number is owned by one Daya Nand and the petitioner-complainant is merely a power of attorney holder to contest the case relating to the said property. It was held that since the accused are in actual physical possession of the field in question, therefore, they cannot be said to have committed the alleged offence. While upholding the order of learned trial court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge further observed that as per the revenue documents available on the record, respondents-accused were in possession of the land in question, although some proceedings regarding correction of khasra girdawaris were initiate by the petitioner-complainant but the same were pending before the revenue authorities, when the alleged occurrence took place. It was also found that a civil suit bearing No. 503 which was instituted on 17.7.1991, titled as Dhyan Singh v. Hari Singh was also pending in the civil court, in which both the parties were directed to maintain status qua over the suit property qua possession. In view of this material available on the record, learned Additional Sessions Judge found no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submitted that both the Courts below have ignored the fact that the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, vide his order dated 20.12.1993 decided the proceedings of correction of khasra girdawari in favour of the petitioner-complainant. Therefore, in view of the said decision, it cannot be held that the respondents-accused were in possession of the disputed field when the impugned orders were passed. I am not inclined to accept this contention. The Courts below have rightly ignored this order, because it was passed much after the date of the alleged occurrence. On the date of occurrence, the respondents-accused were in possession of the disputed land. This order was passed subsequently. The relevant date is the date on which the offence was alleged to have been committed. On that date who was in possession of the disputed land was the relevant factor. Both the Courts below have rightly found that the respondents-accused were in possession of the disputed land on the date of the occurrence. Therefore, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed.