This revision arises against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Mettur, passed in Crl.M.P.No.3911 of 2012 on 12.07.2013.
2. Petitioner preferred a complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate I, Mettur, in Crl.M.P.No.3911 of 2012 alleging that respondents illegally trespassed into their property and took away casuarina wood of value of Rs.1,00,000/-. Court below, under the impugned order, dismissed such complaint. Hence, this revision.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
4. In dismissing the complaint, Court below has found as follows:
Petitioner has stated that the occurrence took place on 05.06.2012 at 12.00 a.m. and the same was witnessed by his mother. Therefore, it was clear that the petitioner had not seen the occurrence. A perusal of documents revealed that there was a land dispute between parties as early as in the year 1988. In the circumstances, the contention of petitioner that he was in possession of the disputed property for over 20 years and respondents are now causing hindrance was unsustainable. It is alleged by petitioner that respondents have stolen causarina wood of value of Rs.1,00,000/- but, to substantiate the same, he has not examined any of the persons residing in the village or neighbours. Petitioner's mother has deposed that she was at her home and on hearing some unusual sound, she went to the rear of her home and saw nine persons cutting the wire fencing. In the complaint, petitioner has stated that only five persons trespassed into their property. Petitioner's mother has deposed only to illegal trespass, she has not stated anything about theft of materials. Therefore, it was doubtful whether persons, against whom complaint has been given, have trespassed into the property and took away materials. Moreover, it is unbelievable that at 12.00 a.m., nine persons illegally trespassed into the property and took away materials worth about Rs.1,00,000/-. Normally, in cases of present nature, at least, one person residing near the property, would have witnessed the occurrence. Further, the materials alleged to have been stolen should have been transported only through a four wheeler, but, neither the petitioner nor his mother have spoken about any vehicle. No documents have been produced to substantiate the allegations levelled by petitioner. If there was any order of civil court in their favour as contended by petitioner, he should have approached civil court for appropriate remedy. Finding as above, Court below dismissed the complaint.
C.T. SELVAM, J gm
5. This Court finds that a most practical and pragmatic approach has been taken by Court below and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. It is easy to make allegations at the drop of a hat. Court below rightly has found that such hat does not fit well.
The Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed.
06.02.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no gm To The Judicial Magistrate I, Mettur.
Crl.R.C.No.152 of 2017 http://www.judis.nic.in