Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1779 (RAJ)

Smt. Mamta v. State of Rajasthan

2014-11-11

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 11.8.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sanchore in Cr.Case No.560/2009 whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(1)(6) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961. 2. The order taking cognizance has been assailed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. 3. Facts in brief are that the SHO Chitalwana, District Jalore filed a complaint against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore on 29.2.2008. It was alleged in the complaint that the Home Department of the Central Government had issued a notification dated 12.3.1996 as per which, the areas falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Sanchore, Chitalwana and Sarwana were declared as notified areas under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961. As a consequence of the notification, the entry and presence of a person not being the bonafide resident of such areas without the permission of the authorised officer was prohibited and amounted to an offence under the Ordinance. The District Magistrate, Jalore allegedly issued a direction to make an inquiry into an information that unauthorised persons were entering into the notified areas without permission and were indulging in purchase of land falling in the notified areas. It was alleged in the complaint that the SHO procured copies of various land transactions from the office of the Tehsil Chitalwana and came to know that the petitioner being a resident of Jaipur i.e. a place beyond the notified area, purchased certain chunks of land falling in the notified area after entering into the notified area on 1.6.2006 without permission of the authorised officer and got the land registered in her name. It was alleged that the petitioner's unauthorised entry into the notified area amounted to an offence under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961. It was further mentioned in the complaint that SHO came to know for the first time on 9.2.2008 that the petitioner had purchased land in the prohibited area. As soon as he became aware of the offence being committed, the complaint was filed in the court concerned. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 11.8.2009 which is under challenge in this misc. petition. As soon as he became aware of the offence being committed, the complaint was filed in the court concerned. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 11.8.2009 which is under challenge in this misc. petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1961 is punishable with one year's simple imprisonment. The complaint was filed after about 18 months of the petitioner's alleged illegal entry into the notified area. The allegations levelled in the complaint are absolutely vague, uncertain and conjectural. He, therefore, prays that the proceedings of the complaint deserve to be quashed as the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence, which would be one year from the date of commission of offence as per Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C. He relied on the judgment dated 15.1.2014 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.2304/2013) whereby this Court quashed an identical complaint preferred against one Pukhraj Mali. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and urged that there is a specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioner entered into the prohibited area without a valid authorisation and got the land registered in her name. Thereafter, the offending acts were repeated. He submits that the offence is a continuing one and therefore, the order taking cognizance and the proceedings of the complaint are not liable to be quashed by resorting to the provisions of Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C. 6. Heard and perused the impugned order as well as the complaint filed in this matter. 7. The complaint filed by the SHO is absolutely silent as to when the petitioner entered into the prohibited area. It is not even stated as to whether the petitioner was present before the Sub-Registrar when the registration was carried out. The allegation in the complaint is rather shaky and uncertain and it reads that either the petitioner entered into/prepared a base for entering into the prohibited area. The allegation that the purchaser continued to visit the prohibited area frequently is also absolutely vague and conjectural. The complainant SHO did not mention in the complaint as to when he or any other witness saw the petitioner entering the prohibited area. The allegation that the purchaser continued to visit the prohibited area frequently is also absolutely vague and conjectural. The complainant SHO did not mention in the complaint as to when he or any other witness saw the petitioner entering the prohibited area. This Court examined an identical factual scenario in the case of Pukhraj (supra) and relying on an earlier decision in another identical matter, quashed the proceedings of the complaint as being vague and time barred. The facts of the instant case are absolutely at par. Thus, while exercising the inherent powers of this Court, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the proceedings of the complaint filed by the SHO Police Station Chitalwana in this case are hopelessly barred by limitation and also that the complaint preferred by the SHO was based on absolutely vague and conjectural allegations and does not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(6) of the Ordinance. 8. Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 11.8.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sanchore in Cr.Case No.560/2009 as well as all subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.Stay petition is disposed of. *******