Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1030 (RAJ)

Vikas Bunkar v. State of Rajasthan

2016-07-20

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2016
ORDER : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 87/2016, registered at Police Station Amer, District Jaipur, for the offences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC. 2. Briefly stated, in the present case, an FIR was lodged by Circle Inspector, Zone-10 and Zone-A of Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter called as 'JDA'), Jaipur. In the said FIR, it was stated that officials of the JDA to remove illegal encroachment constituted a team and had gone for demarcation of Khasra No. 223. It is further stated in the FIR that when they were demarcating the land, 3-4 men and women laid themselves in front of JCB machine and started abusing the officials. It is further averred in the FIR that said persons told that in case encroachment is removed, they will register a case against the officials of JDA. It is further stated that lady constable present made women present at the spot to see reason. It is further averred that due to the act of the accused, an obstruction was caused in the discharge of public duty by the public officials. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the information obtained under Right to Information Act from Tehsildar, JDA. In the said information, it is stated by Public Information Officer that JDA is not seized of any proposal regarding widening and renovation of the road. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that co-ordinate Bench while dealing with this petition, on 6.5.2016, had passed the following order:-- "Investigating Officer Shri Prayagram, ASI Police Station Amer, Jaipur (north), is present in person who submitted factual report of the matter through Public Prosecutor shri Jitendra Shrimali, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Anil Upman submits that petitioner sought information regarding proposed widening of disputed road on which J.D.A. Informed that village Naradpura, Post Natata, Tehsil Jamawaramgarh, Jaipur, Khasra No. 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 214, 222, 223 work of widening or renovating of road is not proposed. He submits that without giving any notice to petitioner or land holder J.D.A. Officials committed criminal trespass in the land of petitioner and demolished its boundary wall with connivance of colonisers Nanagram Saini and Jugalkishor Gupta. He submits that without giving any notice to petitioner or land holder J.D.A. Officials committed criminal trespass in the land of petitioner and demolished its boundary wall with connivance of colonisers Nanagram Saini and Jugalkishor Gupta. He submits that J.D.A. Officials illegally supported the said colonisers and to give them out right benefits for raising the rates of their land without any authority or following prescribed procedure of law. In the pretext of widening the way to their proposed colony to the agricultural land Khasra No. 222 and 223, where colonisers want to develop new colony. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri Jitendra Shrimali on instruction of IO submits that Investigating Officer didn't prepare the factual report of this Court. The factual report was prepared by the IC, Police Station Amer, Shri Ramroop Singh SI. Learned PP. further Submits on instruction of IO that since senior J.D.A. Officers are involved in this matter, therefore, due to their interference the present Investigating Officer is unable to investigate the matter fairly. Therefore, the investigation may be handed over to same Senior Police Officer. It is very surprising that due to pressure of Senior J.D.A. Officer, the Investigating Officers is not in position to investigate the matter fairly. The situation is very serious, therefore, the court deem it proper to apprise the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur Commissionerate regarding this fact to take decision on his own level in this regard considering the above statements of learned Public Prosecutor and inform this court regarding the decision taken by him. Learned PP. is directed to place the copy of this order before the Commissioner of police. List again on 20th May, 2016. Meanwhile no coercive steps shall be taken against the present petitioner." 5. From a perusal of the order dated 6.5.2016, it is revealed that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been noted that JDA committed criminal trespass in the land of the petitioner and demolished the boundary wall with the connivance of colonisers Nanagram Saini and Jugalkishor Gupta, and fair investigation is not being carried. 6. The learned counsel appearing for JDA has submitted that after the orders were passed by the authorities, officials of the JDA had gone to carry demarcation. 7. 6. The learned counsel appearing for JDA has submitted that after the orders were passed by the authorities, officials of the JDA had gone to carry demarcation. 7. From the perusal of the information received from the Public Information Officer, it is revealed that JDA at relevant time was not seized of any plan regarding widening or repair of the road. It is nowhere stated that JDA officials were not authorized to carry demarcation of the land. The demarcation of the land, which belongs to JDA or not, is entirely different from repair or widening of the road. Whether JDA official had gone to help private colonisers or they trespassed in the land of petitioners, is a disputed question of fact, which require evidence. On the mere assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, impugned FIR cannot be quashed. In case, JDA officials had committed criminal trespass or had wrongly demolished the property of the petitioner, the petitioner is well within its right to prosecute them, if law so permits by taking recourse to lawful remedy. However, plea of defence, which is yet to be proved by leading evidence, is not a good ground to quash the FIR while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, taking totality of circumstances, no ground is made to quash the impugned FIR and the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, in consonance with the order dated 6.5.2016, passed by the co-ordinate Bench, to ensure free and fair investigation, it is ordered that Commissioner of Police shall assign investigation of the case to a Gazetted Police Officer.