Crl.Misc. No.M-2838 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2838 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:February 01, 2010 Ram Kumar ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Surya Kant Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short `Cr.P.C. ) for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.9.2009 (Annexure P3) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat dismissing the application under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. for framing of the additional charge and impugned order dated 7.1.2010 (Annexure P4) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dismissing the revision petition filed against order dated 30.9.2009. The prosecution story in brief, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in para 2 of the impugned order, reads as under:- “Brief facts of prosecution case are that the present case was registered on complaint moved by complainant Ram Kumar to the effect that he had purchased land measuring 9 kanal 3 ½ Marlas Crl.Misc. No.M-2838 of 2010 (O&M) 2 from Dayanand son of Jeetu Ram resident of Nimbri vide registered sale deed no.7504/1 and had taken possession of the land alongwith crop of wheat and barseem standing over it. Mutation has also been entered in his favour in this regard. However, brother of Dayanand namely Net Ram and his sons were not happy with this deal and due to this grudge, on 20.2.2001, at about 5.00 PM, Net Ram son of Jeetu Ram and his sons Virender @ Billu and Surender destroyed his wheat crop with the help of tractor, tiller and harrow. When complainant and his brother Ranjit Singh tried to stop them, all of them chased them with lathis and gandasis and threatened to teach them lesson for purchasing land. On the complaint, police investigation was set into motion. Accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court. Accused were charge sheeted under Section 440 read with Section 34 IPC vide order dated 23.1.2002 and thereafter, case was proceeded for prosecution evidence in which seven prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 Ranjit, PW2 Rampal, PW3 Ram Kumar complainant, PW4 Head Constable Gauri Dutt, PW5 Assistant Sub Inspector Balwan Singh, PW6 Rajesh Patwari and PW7 Shiv Kumar Registry Clerk were examined. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed by court order dated 23.7.2009 and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 20.7.2009. In defence evidence also, one DW Rajesh Patwari was examined on 1.9.2009 and thereafter, application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant." Crl.Misc. No.M-2838 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application for framing of additional charge under Section 427,447 IPC was liable to be allowed against respondents No. 2 to 4 as there was prima facie evidence available on the file against them qua the said offences. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 440 read with Section 34 IPC. Petitioner moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. that a charge was also liable to be framed against respondents No. 2 to 4 under section 427, 447 IPC. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 30.9.2009 and the said order was upheld in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 7.1.2010. Complainant claimed that he was in exclusive possession of the plot in dispute in pursuance of the sale deed executed in his favour dated 6.2.2001. Admittedly, complainant had purchased the plot in question from a co-sharer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any revenue record. as per which the vendor of the complainant was described to be in exclusive possession of the plot in dispute or the exclusive possession of the complainant over the plot in dispute. In these circumstances, the Courts below has rightly held that the actual physical possession of the specific killa number sold by the vendor to the complainant was not established on record. Thus, the complainant had become joint owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of the share of his vendor purchased by him. This Court in para 6 of its judgment in Manoj vs. Prem Lal, 2006(3) RCR(Criminal) 941, held as under:- "Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly Crl.Misc. No.M-2838 of 2010 (O&M) 4 and such power was not to be utilised as a substitute for second revision. Ordinarily, when a revision has been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Code, as it is prohibited under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. However, the High Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Code, when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court or when mandatory provision of law are not complied with and when the High court feels that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional Court." In the present case, the petitioner has availed his remedy of revision before the Additional Sessions Judge and has failed to establish that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice or the abuse of process of Court which would call for exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The reasons given by the Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, are sound reasons and call for no interference. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge February 01, 2010 arya Crl.Misc. No.M-2838 of 2010 (O&M) 5