PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by the order dated on 07.08.2015, whereby the learned trial court has framed charge under Section 447 I.P.C. The only contention of the petitioner is that the court cannot proceed under Section 447 I.P.C. as the petitioners were in possession of the place where the incident took place. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards the report of the Patwari and the site report dated 21.03.2014. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 14.03.2014 whereby the stay order was granted in favour of the assailant party, attention has also been drawn to the fact that initially one FIR was lodged by the purchaser of the land under Section 447 I.P.C. in which the police filed negative Final Report in favour of the petitioner. In the earlier complaint filed on 28.07.2014, the police ultimately filed Final Report. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that since they were in possession the case under Section 447 I.P.C. is not made out.
(2.) Contra learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the case is at final stage. Statement of prosecution witnesses has been recorded and matter is pending for statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. His contention is that the complainant party is owner of the property by means of registered sale deed. It is also contended that the petitioner can by way of defence evidence disprove the fact of complainant party being in possession.
(3.) I have perused the impugned order wherein the court below has held that there is no material on the file to discharge the petitioner under Section 447 I.P.C. The court below has placed reliance on Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta and has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to frame charge under Section 447 I.P.C. I have perused the entire record and have perused the documents. It is true that the complainant party has purchased the land by registered sale deed on 14.03.2014 but as far as possession is concerned the report of the patwari is that for last 50 years and at present the possession is of the assailant party. It is also apparent to note that in the earlier complaint filed under Section 447 I.P.C. which was sent to the police. The police lodged final negative report and came to the conclusion from the statement of 40 witnesses recorded by them that the assailant party is in possession of the land for more than 50 years and the Final Report so filed has been accepted by the court on 17.01.2015. It is also apparent that in Civil Suit filed by the assailant party, the court has issued stay order in favour of the assailant party, further there is report of Patwari that being so there is enough material to infer that the assailant party were in possession. The assailant party being in possession as per the record of Patwari, stay order and when initially in the complaint filed under Section 447 I.P.C. Final Report has been filed, the trial court was in error in framing charge against the petitioners for offence under Section 447 I.P.C. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the matter is at final stage and that the petitioner party could produce evidence to prove that they were in possession has no force because the court cannot permit production of unnecessary evidence when from the record it is established that the petitioners were in possession. Consequently, the revision deserves to be allowed the charge under Section 447 I.P.C. is quashed. Revision Allowed.;