Skip to content


Siyaram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 478 of 1986
Judge
Reported in1987WLN(UC)633
AppellantSiyaram and ors.
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Cases ReferredGanesh v. Gangaliya
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - sections 145 & 482 and pena i code--sections 447, 147 & 427--criminal proceedings--quashing of--civil court injunction in favour of accused-accused found in cultivatory possession in proceedings under section 145--complaint against accused for criminal trespass--held, criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.;petition allowed - - a-5 which is on the record of this court and was also filed in the lower court clearly mentions that in khasra no. gangaliya holds good till today or it was set aside either by way of application for setting aside an exparte order or by appeal or revision in any form what so ever. i am convinced that there cannot be a better case case where the interference is required by this court......that there cannot be a better case case where the interference is required by this court. if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue it would be gross abuse of process of court. it is expedient in the interest of justice that the time of all concerned and so also the energy of the court, litigants and lawyers in such frivolous, vexatious and malicious proceedings are saved.9. consequently, i have got no hesitation in quashing all proceedings in this case. it must be observed that the police agencies were expected to be fair and respectful towards the orders of the criminal and civil courts. it is obvious that the police agencies have been partial in a manner and flouted, disregarded and acted in clear violation and flagrant disregard and contravention of the orders of the.....
Judgment:

Guman Mal Lodha, J.

1. This is one of those typical cases where glaring facts have come to light showing how there can be gross abuse of court warraning interference under Section 482, Cr.PC. The short dispute relates to Khasra No. 173 measuring 7 bighas and 3 biswas. The accused petitioners are being prosecuted for the offences under Section 447, 147, 427, IPC committing trespass and taking away the crop cultivated in this land.

2. It is not necessary to mention the facts in detail because the crux of the controversy is that on 9-10-1980 the complainant Kalyan filed this complaint that the accused persons Siya Ram and others have committed trespass in his field.

3. After hearing Mr. Shekhawat learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bajpai learned Counsel for the non-petitioner and Public Prosecutor, I find that on 5-9-1980 following injunction was issued by a competent court in favour of Siya Ram and others and restraining Kalyan and others represented by father of Kalyan from entering this field.

5&9&1980 izkFkhZ e; odhy mifLFkr& vizkFkhZ vuqifLFkr ;g i=koyh U;k;ky; eqUlQh t;iqj ftyk t;iqj ls gLc vkns'k la[;k 351 fnukad 30&8&1980 Jheku ftyk ,ao ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k egksn; es eqUrfdy gksdj vkbZ gS nj[okLr ntZ jftLVj gks uksfVl dh rkehy foi{kh ds bUdkj rksMS+ ij plikaxh ls gqbZ osk dkQh ekuh tkrh gS A vxj foi{kh ds f[kykQ dk;Zokgh bdrjQk vey es ykbZ tkrh gS A odhy izkFkhZ tks QnZ nLrkost ds lkFk udy [krkSuh cUnkscLr la- 2001 rk- 2013 [k ua- 173 jdck] 7 ch?kk xzke eksbuk] ckl vkesj is'k fd;k A cgl odhy izkFkhZ lquh x;h A i=koyh;ks ij izLrqr nLrkostks dk voyksdu fd;k x;k A vr% vkns'k fd;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ fooknxzLr d`f'k [kljk ua0 173 xzke eksVw dk ckl] rglhy vkesj] Fkkuk vkesj ftyk t;iqj es izkFkhZ ds dCts es Loa; vFkok vU; dks izsfjr djkus vfrdze.k dk;Zokgh ,oa gLr{ksi u djs Ai=koyh okn rdehy Qly'kqnk 'kqekj gksdj rdehy gLc dk;nk o tkCrk nkok uEcjh [email protected] rkjh[k is'kh 28&1&1980 ds 'kkfey uRFkh dh tkos A

,lMh @&izeksn; mik/;k;

vij eqfUlQ eftLVsV Js.kh]

t;iqj] ftyk t;iqj

jdck 793 ch?kk okds xzke eksVqdk okl iUnzg o'kZ ls ikVhZ ua- 2 fl;kjke ds dCts o dkLr es gSA mles lkr&vkB; lkl iwoZ gkSnh o ikbZi ykmu cukuk crk;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr es tcfd Hkwfe ij ikVhZ ua- 2 dk dCtk gS rks dqM+d fd;k tkuk laHko ugh gSA

4. The injunction order Ex. A-5 which is on the record of this Court and was also filed in the lower court clearly mentions that in Khasra No. 173 according to revenue record and other evidence produced it is clear that the cultivation and possession prima facie is of Ganesh and others, who represented the present accused Siya Ram and others. The Additional Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur District Jaipur, Shri Pramod Upadhyaya by this order directed that the possession & so also the cultivation of the applicant i.e. Ganesh and others who represented Siya Ram and others should not be disturbed by any type of trespass or interference by the non-petitioners defendant in that case, Gangliya father of Kalyan and others. I enquired from Mr. Bajpai whether this order dated 5-9-1980 passed in Civil Suit No. 45 of 1980 Ganesh v. Gangaliya holds good till today or it was set aside either by way of application for setting aside an exparte order or by appeal or revision in any form what so ever. Mr. Bajpai frankly & candidly conceded that this order holds the field even today.

5. If that is so then it is most surprising and shocking that how a criminal case would have been registered against Siya Ram and others who have got this injunction in their favour from a civil court. It may be mentioned that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 9-10-1980 i.e. after 5-9-1980. On 9-10-1980 admittedly this injunction order was in force. That being so the question of committing criminal trespass, the mischief or forming unlawful assembly for the possession of this land could not have arisen.

6. Obviously according to this injunction order Siya Ram and others were in cultivatory possession of this land and that continued on 9-10-1980 and till now because Mr. Bajpai admits that there is no order of any competent court in any proceedings by which Siya Ram and others either have been dispossessed or declared to be not in possession or trespasser of this land.

7. Curiously enough the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. CPC in criminal case No. 19 of 1980 decided on 12-8-1981 also resulted in the finding that cultivatory possession is of Siya Ram Sharma and others. This was based on the admission of Kalyan's father and others and the statement which was recorded. The relevant portion is as under:

8. This order is dated 21-1-1981 passed by the SDM Amber District Jaipur. These two orders, one of the civil court and another of a criminal court makes it very clear and patent that the possession and cultivation on the land in dispute contained in Khasra No. 173, Motho-ka-Bas, Thana-Amber was of Siya Ram and others at the relevant time. It is surprising from 1980 till now i.e. in 1980 this possession and cultivation is continuing in favour of Siya Ram and others and still they are required to face a criminal case for offence under Sections 447, 147, 427 IPC. I am convinced that there cannot be a better case case where the interference is required by this Court. If the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue it would be gross abuse of process of court. It is expedient in the interest of justice that the time of all concerned and so also the energy of the court, litigants and lawyers in such frivolous, vexatious and malicious proceedings are saved.

9. Consequently, I have got no hesitation in quashing all proceedings in this case. It must be observed that the police agencies were expected to be fair and respectful towards the orders of the criminal and civil courts. It is obvious that the police agencies have been partial in a manner and flouted, disregarded and acted in clear violation and flagrant disregard and contravention of the orders of the civil and criminal courts. Such a state of affairs results in creating curse and scant regard is shown to the rules of law. It is expected that the officers should act impartially and not repeat such partisan spirit and it is expected further that if it is found that it was done deliberately then some appropriate action for preventing such recurrences should be taken by the Director General of Police.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //