- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 19.9.1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 402 of 1996, whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence under section 3(v), (vi) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act). Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not maintainable and is liable to be set aside on the ground that the learned court below has failed to exercise his judicial 1mi 6/5n /2d 01 4w h P ilae g e p 15 a 0ssing the impugned order and no offence is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel explains that admitted case of the complainant/opposite party no.1 is that the ancestors of the complainant had claimed the land under dispute as their own land and they have acknowledged the fact that they were dispossessed from the land in the year 1951 pursuant to a deed of relinquishment executed by their ancestors in favour of the ex -landlord and thereafter the ex -landlord sold away the land to Chandan Singh who having acquired the possession of the land constructed a katcha and pucca house on the land. Subsequently, the father of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed a suit for restoration of the possession of the land under section 71 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. Prayer for restoration of the land was allowed by the competent court, which directed that the land be restored to the possession of the father of opposite parties no. 2 and 3, but the order was never complied with since the possession Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India of the land was not restored to the petitioners. The occupant namely Chandan Singh had filed appeal and petition, one after the other, against the order of restoration but they were dismissed. Later on, he sold away the land including the structures standing thereon to the present petitioners. Learned counsel explains that the grievance of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 is that the petitioners despite their knowledge of the fact that the land belonged to opposite parties no. 2 and 3, had purchased the land from said Chandan Singh thereby committing offence punishable under Section 3 (v), (vi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Further allegation is that the petitioners have prevented the opposite parties 2 and 3 to go into the land by raising obstruction on the passage between the two houses which earlier Chandan Singh had constructed on the land during his occupation. Learned counsel submits that the claim of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 that for the aforesaid act, the petitioners are liable for offence under Section.3(v), (vi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is misconceived. Learned counsel explains further that strangely enough, the persons who had actually constructed the house structure orvi.the disputed land namely Chandan Singh has not been a necessary party to this case and the petitioners have been made accused merely because they had purchased the house over the land in question from Chandan Singh.
(3.) OPPOSITE parties no. 2 and 3 have appeared and counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 3.;