CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 7464 OF 2004 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 03, 2008
Jagdish Chander
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved against an order passed by a
Special Environment Court at Kurukshetra, summoning him on the
basis of a complaint AC No.70/M/2001-2002 under DRR No.5
HI/2001-2002, P.C. No.1/HI/2002-2003. This complaint was filed by
Forest Department, Hisar Division, Hisar. On the basis of this
complaint, the petitioner was summoned vide order dated 20.5.2002.
Pleading that the complaint filed is totally false, prayer for quashing
of complaint and the summoning order is made through the present
CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 7464 OF 2004 :{ 2 }:
petition.
The dispute between the petitioner and the respondents
relates to cutting of some trees. The petitioner claims that his father
was owner of the land and had planted the trees in question and so
these belongs to him. He also claims that he had cut these trees
planted on his land. Respondent-Forest Department, however,
contested this fact and has filed a complaint/damage report annexed
with the petition as Annexure P-1. It is stated therein that on
18.10.2001, forest of Petwar Drain R.D. 114-116 R/S had visited the
area and found some damage. As per the report some eucalyptus
trees were found cut on the Petwar Drain. It is stated that the
accused admitted the offence but refused to put his thumb
impression. It is on this basis that the petitioner has been summoned
by Special Environment Court, Hisar, vide Annexure P-2 on
20.5.2002. The complaint has since been transferred to Court at
Kurukshetra.
The main ground of attack against this complaint and the
summoning order is finding in the civil suit that the petitioner had
earlier filed. As per the petitioner, the respondents had tried to
illegally interfere in his possession, when he filed a suit, seeking both
prohibitory and mandatory injunction and praying for restraining the
respondent-Department for cutting and damaging the trees of the
petitioner standing in Khasra Nos.1202/3, 1204//1/2 and 1195//1/2,
he being owner in possession and co-sharer in the land in dispute. It
is disclosed that the land in dispute is situated adjacent to the land of
the respondent-Department where Safeda, shisham and other trees
CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 7464 OF 2004 :{ 3 }:
were standing. These trees were allegedly planted by father of the
petitioner or the previous owner as some of the land in dispute was
purchased by the petitioner. It is accordingly pleaded that the
respondent-Department has no concern with the ownership and
possession of the trees in question. When the Department had
threatened the petitioner to cut the trees, he got land demarcated
from Sh.Ghansham Dass Tuteja, retired Kanungo. In this report,
trees in question, except two Safeda trees, were found in the land of
the petitioner. Rather, it was found that respondent Department had
illegally cut six trees of Safeda and equal number of trees of Shisham
from the land of the petitioner and the petitioner would reserve his
right to file suit for recovery in respect of the trees against the
respondent-Department.
The petitioner had accordingly filed a civil suit, copy of
which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. This civil
suit was defended by the Department. However, the Trial Court had
decreed the suit filed by the petitioner, holding the petitioner to be the
owner of the plants in dispute. Finding of the Civil Court further is that
respondent-Department could not produce any document to show
their ownership qua the property in question. The petitioner had
produced and proved on record the demarcation report, jamabandi
etc. Copy of the judgment has been annexed with the petition as
Annexure P-5. Against this judgment, the respondent-Department
had filed an appeal before the District Judge, Hisar, which was
dismissed on 6.2.2003. Copy of the judgment passed by the
Appellate Court is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-6. The
CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 7464 OF 2004 :{ 4 }:
Department thereafter did not file any further appeal against this
order and the same, as such, has acquired finality. So, the petitioner
would urge that the present complaint has been filed only to harass
him. He accordingly has challenged the complaint and the
summoning order, which is passed only on the ground that the
complaint has been filed by a public servant.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the judgment
has been passed in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Court, which
has been up-held in appeal, he can not be accused of cutting the
trees, as these are his property and are not of the Forest
Department. Counsel further submits that trees, which are alleged to
have been cut, were the same which are referred in the finding
returned by the civil Court. Counsel submits that the proceedings can
not be continued against the petitioner as the finding in the civil suit
would be binding on the criminal court. In this regard, the counsel
seeks support from the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of M/s Karamchand Ganga Pershad and another
Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1244. In
this case, it is held that the decision of the Civil Court is binding on
the criminal Court whereas converse is not true. The issues in the
complaint and the civil suit would almost be identical. On the basis of
the finding by the Civil Court, it would not be possible to hold that the
petitioner had cut any tree, which belonged to the Forest
Department. The Department is in no position to substantiate its
claim before the criminal Court that the trees, which have been cut,
were that of the Department. If that be so, the petitioner should not
CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M 7464 OF 2004 :{ 5 }:
be vexed with trial and proceedings, which ultimately are bound to
fail. The petitioner, in order to succeed, has to just go and produce
copy of judgment of the Civil Court, which has acquired finality. In
any event, the petitioner, who has established his claim over the
trees, which he had cut, can not be vexed with the criminal
prosecution for having cut those trees on the ground that these
belonged to the Forest Department. The proceedings against the
petitioner if allowed to continue, would amount to abuse of the
process of the Court.
The complaint and the summoning order are, as such,
can not be sustained and the same are hereby set-aside. The
petition is accordingly allowed.
September 03,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE