Allowed

Jiu and Ors. v. Ramesh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Nov 2015CRM-M/15160/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a complaint and subsequent summons under the Prevention of Atrocities Act regarding land issues. The bench held that since the petitioners' land was exempted from the surplus pool and possession was never handed over, continuing proceedings was an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Complaint No. 20 dated 15.4.2011 and all consequential proceedings, including the summoning order dated 1.2.2012, are quashed.

Jiu and Ors. Vs Ramesh and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-15160 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-15160 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.11.2015.

Jiu and others

........Petitioners

Vs.

Ramesh and another ......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

Present: Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

None for respondent No. 1.

¶12

Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint No. 20 dated 15.4.2011 under Section 3 (i) (iv) and (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (' Act ' for short), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 1.2.2012 (Annexure P-6).

¶15

The contents of the complaint (Annexure P-1) read as

¶16

under:-

¶17

“ The complainant informs and complaints that killas no. 34/2-3-4-5-6 measuring 39 kanals 16 marlas surplus land of village Bhaini Bhairon, P.S. Meham, District Rohtak was allotted to Om Parkash father of the

¶18

GURPREET SINGH 2015.11.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-15160 of 2012 (O&M) -2 -

¶20

complainant on 3.11.1977 by SDO (C)/Allotment authority, Rohtak for a sum of Rs. 4608.16P and possession was delivered on 14.6.19880 as per Rapat Roznamcha Patwari No. 441. Cost of the land had been deposited. Sh. Om Parkash a Scheduled Caste expired on 10.7.1985. The accused persons Jiu, Ajmer Singh, Jai Bhagwan, Satbir and Maldev Caste Jats residents of village Bhaini Bhairon P.S. Meham, District Rohtak cultivated and occupied the allotted land of the complainant wrongfully and forcefully during Kharif 2009 and Rabi 2010 to Kharif 2010 and also the allotted land was got transferred in their names. Legal action be taken against the respondents. ”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, in fact, petitioners were big land owners and their land had been declared surplus. Later vide order dated 19.8.1980 (Annexure P-3), it was held that the petitioners were small land owners and their land was exempted from surplus pool. Hence, the complaint in question was liable to be dismissed.

¶22

None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1.

¶23

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I

¶24

am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

¶25

Sections 3 (1) (i) (iv) and (v) of the Act read as under:- 3. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled for offences of Tribe,-

¶26

(i) forces a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to drink or eat any inedible or

¶27

GURPREET SINGH 2015.11.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶28

Crl. Misc. No. M-15160 of 2012 (O&M)

¶29

-3 -

¶30

obnoxious substance;

¶31

(iv) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred ;

¶32

(v) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water.”

¶33

In the present case, the land belonging to the petitioners was declared surplus. However, vide order Annexure P-3, the land belonging to the petitioners was exempted from surplus pool. A perusal of Annexure P-3 further reveals that it had been further ordered that the land had been allotted to the allottees but they not taken possession of the same so far. The allotment was ordered to be cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, has submitted that the order Annexure P-3 has gained finality. Thus, in the present case, it cannot be said that the petitioners were causing any harassment to the complainant on account of his being the member of the scheduled caste. Rather, the land belonging to the petitioners was initially declared surplus but later the same was exempted from surplus pool. As per the order Annexure P-3, although, the land had been allotted to the allottees but possession had not been handed over to them. Hence,

¶34

GURPREET SINGH 2015.11.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶35

Crl. Misc. No. M-15160 of 2012 (O&M) -4 -

¶36

continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶37

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint No. 20 dated 15.4.2011 under Section 3 (i) (iv) and (v) of the Act and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, including the summoning order dated 1.2.2012 (Annexure P-6) are quashed.

¶38

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶39

November 02, 2015 Gurpreet

¶40

GURPREET SINGH 2015.11.05 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Jiu and Ors. v. Ramesh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiu and Ors. v. Ramesh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Aggarwal@ Mohan Lal & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Gagandeep Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ravti Raman Shally Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Charan Dass Aggarwal Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Vinod Kapoor and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Pritam Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab etc.