LAL, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 2. 4. 2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 90/2004 whereby charges for offences under Sections 323, 447 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (5) of the Act of 1989 have been framed.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that of 27. 3. 2004 an F. I. R. came to be lodged at P. S. Shivdaspura by one Smt. Dhapu Devi W/o Bhanwar Lal Meena to the effect that petitioner Jagdish Prasad Sharma along with one Sanwar Ram and Sita Ram and 22-25 other persons came and forcibly took the possession of the land belonging to the complainant. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 323, 447 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (5) of the Act of 1989 (hereinafter referred in short as "the Act") against the petitioner and one Sanwar Ram. The trial Court after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the materials placed before it passed the impugned order directing faming of charges as indicated hereinabove. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offences under Sections 447 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (5) of the Act of 1989 are not made out as there is no evidence on record in support of the fact that the land in question belongs to the complainant or her husband. Therefore, there is no sufficient material to frame charges against the accused for offences under Sections 447 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (5) of the Act of 1989. He has, therefore, urged that these charges do not stand and deserve to be quashed and the petitioner deserves to be discharged of the charges. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the contention and he has tried to support the order of the learned trial Court.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the record. Admittedly, the land bearing Khasra Nos. 2381, 2382, 2380/6406 and 2383/6660 belong to Brijmohan S/o Badri Narayan Mahajan who has given the alleged power of attorney dated 29. 9. 2000 in favour of the petitioner and has also entered into an agreement dated 28. 9. 2000 to sell the said property to the younger brother of petitioner, Ramprakash. These documents along with oral statements of Smt. Dhapu Devi, Sitaram, Kali, Bhonri Devi, Mooli, Rama, Sujilal, Ramlal, Moolchand, Ramsahay, Badri Narayan and Motilal prima facie proved cultivatory possession of the petitioner on the land in question. At this stage, this Court in its limited revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon a roving enquiry by weighing the materials on record to see as to whether their title and possession of the property stands scrutining of law or not. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charge, the court cannot delve deep into appreciation of the evidence. It is to see only a prima-facie case. If the court comes to the conclusion that there is prima-facie material to proceed against the accused, the charges may be framed and the revisional court ought not to and cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court unless the order impugned is perverse and arbitrary resulting into miscarriage of justice. ;