IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-48568 of 2005
Date of Decision: December 04, 2008
Raj Kumar
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Narender Sura, Assistant
Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This petition has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.94 dated
28.8.2005 (Annexure P-6) under Section 447 IPC
registered with Police Station, Bilaspur, District
Yamunanagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the Gram Panchayat never went before
the authorities under Section 13-B of the Punjab
Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act applicable to
the State of Haryana for declaration of title.
Learned counsel has further contended that the
Crl. Misc. No. M-48568 of 2005 [2]
possession of the petitioner is very old i.e. since
50 years. Further contention is that the Civil Court
is already seized of the matter.
I have considered the contention of
learned counsel.
The allegation made in the FIR is that
demarcation had been obtained from Naib Tehsildar. A
report in that regard was submitted on 27.8.2005.
The petitioner has cultivated paddy crop without
taking Gram Panchayat land on lease.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
raised disputed questions of facts, the primary
question being whether he is in legal and authorised
possession or not.
Contention of the learned counsel that
possession is very old and therefore, he was
entitled to cultivate the land, cannot per-se be
accepted so as to call for invoking inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and for
quashing of FIR.
In the written statement filed on behalf
of respondent No.1 (in Para 7 of the reply on
merits), it has been pointed out that investigation
has been completed and allegations levelled in the
complaint were found to be cogent. Final report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court of
Illaqa Magistrate on 26.5.2005. The case is fixed at
the charge stage.
In the written statement filed on behalf
Crl. Misc. No. M-48568 of 2005 [3]
of the Block Development & Panchayat Officer, it has
been pointed out that the Gram Panchayat had been
auctioning the lease rights on the land at issue.
For the year 1998-99, the land including the land at
issue was auctioned in the name of Krishan Lal son
of Om Parkash being the highest bidder. For the year
1999-2000, the land was auctioned in the name of
Madan son of Nitta being the highest bidder. For the
year 2000-01, land was again auctioned in the name
of same person namely Madan. For the year 2001-02,
it was auctioned in favour of Ram Saran son of Rulia
Ram. For the year 2002-03, it was auctioned in the
name of Jasmer son of Prithvi. There was some
cutting in the receipt book by the then Sarpanch.
The same was done in connivance with the petitioner.
For the period 2003-04, land was auctioned in the
name of Puran Chand son of Kashmira. The amount of
auction was not received by the then Sarpanch,
statedly with the connivance of the petitioner.
It is under these circumstances, it has
been concluded by the respondent that Khasra
Girdawari for the land at issue in the name of Vidya
Sagar, brother of the petitioner, is illegal and
contrary to the facts on record. The Patta register
and other related documents to indicate the stand of
the respondent have been appended with the reply.
Considering the fact and circumstances
of the case, in my considered opinion, there are
disputed questions of facts. The petitioner cannot
Crl. Misc. No. M-48568 of 2005 [4]
be adjudged innocent by way of taking affidavits and
counter affidavits. The petitioner would have the
remedy available to him for either raising of the
issues raised in this petition at the stage of
charge, as permissible in law, or bring evidence in
defence during the course of trial.
The petition is dismissed.
(AJAI LAMBA)
December 04, 2008 JUDGE
avin