Ranjeet Singh Bisht another v. State Of Uttarakhand and another

Superintendent of Police, District Chamoli against Shri Basant Kumar Nainwal. In the complaint, it stated that he purchased the land No. 2593 from Avtar Singh, near Chamoli Gopeshwar motor Marg by a registered sale 1 deed. It is further alleged in the complaint that the Khet No. 2592, which is just beside the Khet No. 2593, the land owner of Khet No. 2592, Basant Kumar Nainwal and Ranjit Singh Bisht are co- sharers of the land. It is further alleged in the complaint that the applicant constructed a latrine-pit on the land bearing Khet No. 2592, measuring 4 Mutthi, and the entire dispute in the complaint is regarding the constriction the latrine-pit over the disputed land.

3. The F.I.R was lodged on 12.05.2015 and during the investigation, 17 witnesses’ statement were recorded and charge-sheet was field under sec 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 420 of I.P.C.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent no. 2 is habitual of lodging the complaints against the applicants; this complaint is also filed because of that land dispute between the parties; and there is no evidence regarding the harassment or abusive caste related words. It has further been submitted that after respondent filed the application under 156(3) Cr.PC, the Magistrate by a detailed order rejected the Application and disclosed that the present matter is purely of Civil Nature.

5. The Applicant no. 2 has also filed suit no. 41 under the Land Revenue Act for demarcation of land of Khasra No. 2592. Respondent no. 2 has also filed for demarcation of the land purchased by him in Khasra No.

2593. Provincial Division Gopeshwar, Chamoli who was 2 party in the said suit, has filed Witten Statement and have said that Khasra No. 2593 and 2594 have been acquired by the Department in the year 1963-64 and have taken possession for construction of road but name of the Department have not been entered in the Revenue record. The respondent no. 2 had also filed the complaint against the applicant before the SC/ST Commission, Uttarakhand and in that application, Commission called the report from District Magistrate, Chamoli and District Magistrate, Chamoli submitted the report before the Commission and stated that there are so many disputes between the parties which are pending for adjudication in the court of jurisdiction for hearing.

6. It has also been alleged that the case in hand falls on those rarest of rare cases, in which, immediate intervention of this Hon’ble Court is required because this is purely abuse of law; the case in hand is purely of Civil nature and many such civil cases have been decided by the court below between the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Investigating Officer after the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants after collecting the material evidence available on record and after recording the statements of the witnesses and the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer is just and proper in the eyes of law. The applicant deliberately for the purpose of cheating mentioned the wrong boundaries in the sale-deed dated 19.10.1995 and thus committed fraud under section 420 of I.P.C. 3

8. Charge-sheet has been filed under Section 420 and Sections 3 (1) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Bare perusal of the complaint as well as the charge-sheet would reveal that the provisions of Sections 3 (1) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 420 IPC are not attracted in this case since the parties are at loggerhead with each other for the last decade and the matter relating to demarcation of the plot is pending before the Revenue Authorities and also for the fact that Khasra no. 2593 was acquired by the PWD Department in the year 1963-64, as has been submitted by the Officers of PWD department in their statements given before the Revenue Authorities, therefore, it has, yet not been proved that respondent no. 2 was wrongfully dispossessed from his land and premises. That since the matter regarding possession and demarcation of the property is pending before the Revenue Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes Act, unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes category.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, after going through the records of the case and in view of observations made in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the view that this petition is liable to be allowed. 4

10. Accordingly, present C-482 Petition is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 22.07.2015 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 11 of 2015, for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Sections 3 (1) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, are hereby quashed. Kaushal (Alok Mahra, J.)

08.05.2025 5