Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 128 (UTT)

RAKESH KUMAR v. NAGAR PALIKA, ROORKEE

2010-03-23

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2010
JUDGMENT By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 24 of 1987, Nagar Palika Roorkee Vs. Rakesh Kumar, relating to offences punishable under Sections 265, 299, 307 of U.P. Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, pending in the court of Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that criminal complaint is filed by Nagar Palika, Roorkee, against the petitioner, alleging that he has encroached upon public land belonging to Nagar Palika in an area of 15ft x 8ft on 10.01.1983. In respect of said encroachment, earlier a complaint was made before Special Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, in which a sentence of fine of Rs. 20/- was awarded against the petitioner/accused. However, even thereafter, he continued in possession illegally over the aforesaid land. He was given a notice dated 25.09.1986, to vacate the public property, but he failed to deliver the possession to the Nagar Palika. Consequently, considering the continuous offence being committed by the petitioner, the criminal complaint relating to offences punishable under Sections 265, 299, 307 of U.P. Nagar Palika Adhiniyam, was filed on 13.01.1987, before Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, which was registered as criminal complaint case No. 24 of 1987. It appears that the petitioner was summoned in said case. The petitioner challenged the proceedings of aforesaid case by filing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., before Allahabad High Court on the ground that only for one or two days iron and other material were kept by the petitioner on the land in question and thereafter it was removed. It is further pleaded that no notice was served on the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that criminal proceedings are hit by provision contained in Section 468 of Cr.P.C. It is pleaded that in respect of offence committed in the year 1983, the limitation expired after six months, and the Magistrate has committed error in taking cognizance on the criminal complaint, filed in the year 1987. However, on perusal of the criminal complaint, this Court finds that the petitioner allegedly continued to illegally occupy the public land and it was a continuous offence, as stated in para-2 and para-4 of the criminal complaint. However, on perusal of the criminal complaint, this Court finds that the petitioner allegedly continued to illegally occupy the public land and it was a continuous offence, as stated in para-2 and para-4 of the criminal complaint. Since the petitioner’s occupation continued till the criminal complaint is filed, in the circumstances, this Court is of the view that criminal complaint is not barred by time, nor it is hit by provision contained in Section 468 of Cr.P.C. 5. As far as service of notice is concerned, it is clearly stated in the criminal complaint that the notice was served on the petitioner. Merely for the reason that the petitioner denies before this Court service of notice, this Court cannot interfere in its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for it is for the trial court to see, after recording evidence, whether the service of notice was actually, made or not. 6. Having considered, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds no force in this petition (which is received by transfer from Allahabad High Court for its disposal). Accordingly, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Interim order passed by Allahabad High Court on 19.12.1988, stands automatically vacated. (Stay vacation application No. 683 of 2008, stands disposed of).