IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2001 (Old no. 46 of 2000) Bhuwan Singh Gunjyal S/o Late Shri Bahadur Singh Gunjyal R/o Dharamshala Lines, Pithoragarh District Pithoragarh ……….Applicant /Revisionist. Versus 1. State of U.P.(now State of Uttarakhand) 2. Ravindra Singh Bisht S/o Late Shri Chanchal Singh Bisht 3. Rishin @ Rishendra Singh Bisht S/o Shri Devraj Singh Bisht Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are resident of Maldar Bhawan, Purani Bazar, P.S. Kotwali, District Pithoragarh. 4. Balbir Singh Mahar S/o Shri Laxman Singh Mahar R/o village Chaisar, P.S. Kotwali District Pithoragarh. 5. Bhupendra Singh Mahar S/o Shri Kishan Singh Mahar R/o DCM Shop, Gandhi Chowk P.S. Kotwali, District Pithoragarh 6. Raibhan Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh R/o Gandhi Chowk, P.S. Kotwali District Pithoragarh. 7. Bhuwan Chandra Pandey S/o Shri Ram Dutt Pandey R/o Simalgair Bazar, P.S. Kotwali District Pithoragarh. .…….Opposite parties. 2 Shri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Shri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate, present for respondent nos. 2 to 7. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 11.10.1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in sessions trial no. 16 of 1999, State vs. Ravindra Singh & others relating to offences punishable under section 147, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, and one punishable under section 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby said court has discharged the accused (respondent nos. 2 to 7), from the aforesaid charges. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/revisionist Bhuwan Singh Gunjyal, is a member of scheduled tribe. On 4.01.1998, he lodged first information report with Police Station Kotwali, Pithoragarh, alleging that on 01.09.1998, at about 3P.M. 3 when the complainant was getting done the repair work in the house, accused/respondent Ravindra Singh Bisht and Rishin Singh Bisht, obstructed the construction work and got damaged the items kept for construction. It is also alleged in the complaint that complainant was insulted by the accused as he was a member of scheduled tribe. Said report was registered as crime no. 207 of 1998, with Police Station Kotwali, Pithoragarh, and investigated. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondents Ravindra Singh Bisht and Rishin Singh Bisht. The supplementary charge sheet was filed against accused/respondents Balbir Singh, Bhuwan Singh, Raibhan Singh and Bhupendra Singh Mehta. Both the charge sheets were clubbed together, as they had arisen out of the same crime number, and case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, vide impugned order dated 11.10.1999, after hearing the parties, discharged the accused from the offences punishable under section 147, 427, 504 and 506 IPC and one punishable under section 3(1)(v) of Scheduled Castes and 4 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the trial court has committed grave error of law in discussing the evidence at the stage of framing of charge. It is further contended that there was sufficient material before the learned Sessions Judge to frame the charge against the accused/respondents. 5. I have gone through the lower court record and found that the trial court has taken note of the fact that the names of accused/respondents Balbir Singh, Bhuwan Pandey, Raibhan Singh and Bhupendra Singh Mehta did not figure in the first information report nor were these names mentioned in the statement of the complainant recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Even, in the report sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police names of the above mentioned accused did not find place. It is pertinent to mention here that the first information report is lodged on 04.09.1998, i.e. after three days of the incident which took place on 01.09.1998. As such, the trial of the 5 court took the view that the material before the trial court was not sufficient to frame charge against the accused/respondents. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the trial court has erred in law in not framing the charge at least against the remaining two accused namely Ravindra Singh Bisht and Rishin Singh Bisht. In reply to this attention of this Court is drawn on behalf of the accused/respondents to the fact that the Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh, had no power to transfer the investigation to the Circle Officer, Champawat, who was not within the territorial domain of said officer and as such the charge sheet in respect of the remaining two was also erroneous. However, under section 156 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that could not have been a ground for not framing the charge. To that extent the impugned order does suffer from illegality. But that by self is not sufficient to allow this revision, for the reason that material on record does gives reasons to the court to believe that there is not sufficient evidence on record to frame charge against any of the accused. Lower court record shows that the parties to the present litigation were already 6 in litigation as landlord and tenant from the date much before the incident. It appears that they were also litigating before Allahabad High Court. In the opinion of this Court, the trial court had sufficient reasons to take view that the material on record was not sufficient to frame the charge against the accused. 6. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 11.10.1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in sessions trial no. 16 of 1999. Therefore, the revision is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:18.05.2010 parul