Skip to content


Smt. P.C. Sainghingi Vs. Vanchuma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1985CriLJ1704
AppellantSmt. P.C. Sainghingi
RespondentVanchuma and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....(judicial branch) lungleh, against the opposite parties alleging commission of offences. however, learned magistrate passed the impugned order on the basis of an enquiry report submitted by shri saingura sailo, advocate.3. it may be stated here that in mizoram, spirit and not the letters of the criminal procedure code is followed. however, what i find from the impugned order is that substantial justice has been done to the petitioner who has been granted quick remedies as well. instead of waiting a long period to get back possession of the house she got an order from the court to re-occupy the same forthwith. further, the accused persons were also warned and cautioned not to repeat the performances. as a result thereof the petitioner is protected and if any of the accused violates the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K. Lahiri, J.

1. This is a revision against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lungleh, who on receipt of the report submitted by an Advocate on the complaint made by the petitioner ordered that the charges levelled against the accused persons were 'not reasonable' and accordingly, they were 'freed from any liability of charges', however, the petitioner was allowed to occupy her house and the accused persons were warned not to repeat the performance in future.

2. The case of the petitioner-complainant is that on November 3, 1980 at 7 a.m. the opposite parties trespassed into her house, put on the screw, occupied her house and turned her out with her minor children. Thereafter, when the petitioner returned back she found the doors of her house locked from outside, and, she could not enter her house. She lodged a complaint in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (Judicial Branch) Lungleh, against the opposite parties alleging commission of offences. However, learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on the basis of an enquiry report submitted by Shri Saingura Sailo, Advocate.

3. It may be stated here that in Mizoram, spirit and not the letters of the Criminal Procedure Code is followed. However, what I find from the impugned order is that substantial justice has been done to the petitioner who has been granted quick remedies as well. Instead of waiting a long period to get back possession of the house she got an order from the court to re-occupy the same forthwith. Further, the accused persons were also warned and cautioned not to repeat the performances. As a result thereof the petitioner is protected and if any of the accused violates the order they would not only be liable for prosecution for commission of the offence but they may be liable for contempt of Court. Further, the order enables her to take possession of the house. If in fact she has got possession of the house I feel that substantial justice has been done in the case. However, if the petitioner is yet to get the possession of the house, she can ask for it and have an order from the learned Magistrate, authorising her to re-occupy the house, with police help, if necessary.

4. In view of the order the petitioner has got two substantial reliefs in her favour. I feel that she should not have any grievance as to why a long and protracted trial was not held to punish the accused persons. However if the petitioner feels that the learned Magistrate has done her wrong in granting the reliefs she may forego the reliefs and ask for the continuation of the trial by making an application before the learned Magistrate. If she makes such an application, she cannot take the reliefs granted by the impugned order. Naturally, she shall be shelterless until the criminal case is disposed of. I feel that justice has been done to the petitioner. However, if she feels inclined she can ask for trial of accused. In that event she shall have to vacate possession of house in question and the warnings given to the accused will also be nugatory and ineffective.

5. The order rendered by learned Magistrate that the accused were 'free from their liability of the charges' was not an order of acquittal. Strictly speaking, this was also not an order of discharge. As such, the petitioner may make an application to the learned Magistrate or his successor praying for the continuation of the trial of accused whereupon learned Magistrate shall consider her application, decide whether to examine the witnesses and complete the trial or decide whether the petition should be dismissed. However, the order of learned Magistrate warning the accused not to repeat the performances shows that the Magistrate accepted the story of the complainant, otherwise he would not have warned the accused not to repeat the performance. As such, I feel that on such application learned Magistrate or his successor may continue with the proceedings if the complainant makes application to continue with the trial. However, learned Magistrate shall perhaps vacate the order directing the petitioner to take over possession of the house and the warning or caution given to the accused may also be vacated.

6. I feel that on the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner has received beneficial orders in her favour and she ought not to make another exercise to enter into an uncertain litigation expending time, money and energy for ultimately she might not get any relief at all. If she does not get any relief on conclusion of the trial she would be shelterless with her minor children. However, it is entirely for the petitioner to decide her course of action. If so advised, she may ask for continuation of the trial by making an application before the learned Magistrate or his successor in office. Whereupon learned Magistrate shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

7. In the result the case is disposed of with the aforesaid directions,


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