Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 444 (PNJ)

Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana

2001-04-20

AMAR DUTT

body2001
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - Kartar Singh and his two sons have filed the present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing F.I.R. No. 195 dated 29.5.1998 under Sections 379 and 409 Indian Penal Code registered in police station Rania. 2. According to the F.I.R., petitioner No. 1, who was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dariyanwala, had got removed 3 Shisham and equal number of kikar trees, which were standing adjacent to khal No. 5400/R on 19th and 20th of May, 1988 with the help of Bhagwan Dass son of Jawahar Ram of Bukharkhera. He had no permission for removal of the same and did not got any measurement of the wood carried out and had removed them for his personal use. 5 or 6 days prior to Baisakhi, he has also got removed 3 kikar trees and one jhand tree standing in the land of Bukharkhera, which was in the possession of Banwari son of Kanshi Ram. These acts, according to the complaint, constitute an offence under Sections 409, 379 and 411 Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners state that there was no cause for registration of the F.I.R., which has been foisted on them on account of political reasons and due to party faction in the village. The F.I.R. was initially registered under Section 379 Indian Penal Code but the investigating agency had added Section 409 Indian Penal Code without any reason. According to the petitioners, flow of water in the khal was obstructed by the trees and weeds standing therein and on account of this an application was moved to petitioner No. 1 on 12.5.1988 alleging that the villagers were not getting any adequate water and, therefore, action should be taken to clear these obstructions. The Panchayat had passed resolution No. 107 on 17.5.1998 for removal of the trees and weeds and it was in pursuance of this resolution that the trees were removed from near the khal. Respondent No. 2, it was submitted, had moved an application before the S.D.O. (Civil), Ellenabad alleging that the trees had been removed by petitioner No. 1 unauthorisedly for his own personal benefit and misappropriated the proceeds thereof. Respondent No. 2, it was submitted, had moved an application before the S.D.O. (Civil), Ellenabad alleging that the trees had been removed by petitioner No. 1 unauthorisedly for his own personal benefit and misappropriated the proceeds thereof. The matter was looked into by the S.E.P.O., who submitted a report to the B.D.P.O. Inspite of this, the F.I.R. has been registered and even after the registration of the F.I.R. the matter was duly enquired into by the B.D.P.O., who submitted a report on 11.6.1998. During this enquiry, Sarvshri Om Parkash, Jagdish and Kartar had given affidavits in favour of the petitioners to the effect that they were being falsely implicated and taking this into consideration, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The F.I.R. and the subsequent proceedings being actuated by personal mala fides and the matters having already been enquired into by independent agencies, according to the petitioners, should be quashed. Even otherwise, the ultimate chance of conviction of the petitioners is very bleak and on this ground too, the same cannot be sustained. 4. In the written reply filed by respondent No. 1 it is submitted that after the completion of the investigation the challan had been presented in Court on 17.11.1998. It was also asserted that the evidence collected indicated commission of an offence under Sections 379 and 409 Indian Penal Code. Not only 6 trees had been cut by the petitioners out of a piece of land where they were not in any way obstructing the flow of the course of water, they had also cut 3 trees from the land of cremation ground of village Bukharkhera. As the trees were not causing any obstruction to the flow of water, the resolution alleged to have been passed by the Gram Panchayat is of no consequence. The reports of the B.D.P.O. and S.E.P.O. were stated to be procured by the petitioners as also the affidavits of Om Parkash, Jagdish and Kartar. These reports, it was submitted, do not help the case of the petitioners in any way as the opinion contained therein is no substitute for the trial, which the petitioners are required to face before the Criminal Court. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the petition was without merit and ought to be dismissed. 5. These reports, it was submitted, do not help the case of the petitioners in any way as the opinion contained therein is no substitute for the trial, which the petitioners are required to face before the Criminal Court. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the petition was without merit and ought to be dismissed. 5. I have heard Shri Sanjiv Gupta, appearing for the petitioners, Shri Rajesh Bhardwaj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and Shri S.S. Sidhu, appearing for the complainant-respondent No. 2. 6. While on behalf of the petitioners it was sought to be urged that their case falls squarely within the purview of the following principles laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) Recent C.R. 383 : 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. as reiterated in Haridya Ranjan Pd. Verma and others v. State of Bihar and another, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 484, inasmuch as, according to the petitioners, the allegations contained in the F.I.R. do not disclose the commission of an offence and in any case they are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent man would decide to proceed on their basis against the accused, the petition is opposed on the ground that evidence having been collected during investigation that the trees do no obstruct the flow of water as also that after their removal they had been stacked away by the petitioners for their own personal gain, there was no merit in the submission that a case was made out for quashing the proceedings which have been imitated against the petitioners. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and am of the view that in the present case, we have allegations being made against the petitioners in a manner which create doubt about the motive with which the petitioner No. 1 had got passed resolution No. 107 for removal of the trees and given effect to what had been proposed. The trees after removal are stated to have been stacked away and no effort was made to account for the same in the records of the Panchayat. The petitioners on the other hand state that this inference is not warranted for the cutting of the trees was occasioned by a Panchayat resolution stating that this was necessary to ensure a regular flow of water in the khal. The petitioners on the other hand state that this inference is not warranted for the cutting of the trees was occasioned by a Panchayat resolution stating that this was necessary to ensure a regular flow of water in the khal. As to which position is correct, this Court would not be able to determine in proceedings under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code because the material which has been collected by the investigating agency would have to be produced before the trial Court in the form of admissible evidence. Similarly, the petitioners would also be required to bring on the record any evidence which according to them exonerate them from any responsibility and only after this has been done, would it be possible for the trial Court to launch upon an exercise for determining where the truth lies. For the present, it would be suffice to say that the principles formulated in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lals case (supra) and those crystalised in Haridya Ranjan Pd. Vermas case (supra) for warranting the intervention by this Court in criminal proceeding initiated against any one would not be attracted. The petitioners sought to bring their case under principles No. (3) and (5) quoted above and these in view of what has been stated hereinbefore would not be attracted to in the facts and circumstances of the present of case. Accordingly, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.