Couple Accused Of Trying To Take Over Colony Park Must Face Trial As P&H HC Upholds Reversal Of Discharge, Citing Sale Deeds Depicting A Park

In brief

The question

Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in setting aside the petitioners’ discharge where the jamabandi recorded them as co-sharers in joint possession of the disputed land.

The court held

The Court held that the material disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners and that the Additional Sessions Judge committed no apparent illegality or perversity in setting aside the discharge order.

It also directed

The petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

01Facts

The complainant, president of the Pritam Park Welfare Society, alleged that the petitioners attempted to take possession of a park in Pritam Park Colony, removed its foundation stone, and threatened residents.

The police filed a report under Section 173 CrPC, including allegations under Sections 379 and 447 IPC.

The Judicial Magistrate discharged the petitioners, relying on jamabandi entries recording them as co-sharers in joint possession and finding insufficient material to establish that the land was a park.

pp. 2–3

On the complainant’s revision, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the discharge order, relying, among other things, on sale deeds and revenue material indicating the existence of a park adjoining plots in the colony.

pp. 3–4

The petitioners challenged that revisional order under Section 482 CrPC.

p. 1

02Issues

i.Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in setting aside the petitioners’ discharge where the jamabandi recorded them as co-sharers in joint possession of the disputed land.

pp. 3–5

ii.Whether the material in the police report disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged offences, such that the revisional order should be left undisturbed.

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

The Court considered Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under which the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and Sections 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning theft and criminal trespass, respectively.

pp. 1–2

At the stage of considering discharge, the question is whether the material, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients of the alleged offences and raises sufficient suspicion to justify proceeding to trial; the court does not determine guilt at that stage.

pp. 6–7

The Court also stated that revenue entries may not reflect the actual factual position where other material, including evidence of a developed residential colony, sufficiently rebuts them.

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 173

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 379 Section 447 Section 511 Section 506 Section 201 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioners’ reliance on the jamabandi was not conclusive.

pp. 5–6

Sale deeds relating to plots in the colony described a park measuring 70 feet along their southern boundary; the site plan showed 33 plots carved out in khasra No. 545; and the revenue official’s report recorded a park on the plots’ southern side.

pp. 5–6

This material was part of the police report and, taken at face value, supported the existence of a park on the disputed land and disclosed grounds to proceed.

pp. 6–7

The Magistrate therefore erred in treating the jamabandi entries as sufficient to discharge the petitioners, and the revisional court’s decision disclosed no apparent illegality or perversity.

pp. 6–7