AMAR DUTT,J - (1.) KARTAR Singh and his two sons have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing F.I.R. No. 195 dated 29.5.1998 under Sections 379 and 409 IPC registered in police station Rania.
(2.) ACCORDING to the F.I.R., petitioner No. 1, who was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dariyanwala, had got removed 3 Shisham and equal number of kikar trees, which were standing adjacent to khal No. 5400/R on 19th and 20th of May, 1988 with the help of Bhagwan Dass son of Jawahar Ram of Bukharkhera. He had no permission for removal of the same and did not got any measurement of the wood carried out and had removed them for his personal use. 5 or 6 days prior to Baisakhi, he has also got removed 3 kikar trees and one jhand tree standing in the land of Bukharkhera, which was in the possession of Banwari son of Kanshi Ram. These acts, according to the complaint, constitute an offence under Sections 409, 379 and 411 IPC. The petitioners state that there was no cause for registration of the F.I.R., which has been foisted on them on account of political reasons and due to party faction in the village. The F.I.R. was initially registered under Section 379 IPC but the investigating agency had added Section 409 IPC without any reason. According to the petitioners, flow of water in the khal was obstructed by the trees and weeds standing therein and on account of this an application was moved to petitioner No. 1 on 12.5.1988 alleging that the villagers were not getting any adequate water and, therefore, action should be taken to clear these obstructions. The Panchayat had passed resolution No. 107 on 17.5.1998 for removal of the trees and weeds and it was in pursuance of this resolution that the trees were removed from near the khal. Respondent No. 2, it was submitted, had moved an application before the S.D.O. (Civil), Ellenabad alleging that the trees had been removed by petitioner No. 1 unauthorisedly for his own personal benefit and misappropriated the proceeds thereof. The matter was looked into by the S.E.P.O., who submitted a report to the B.D.P.O. Inspite of this, the F.I.R. has been registered and even after the registration of the F.I.R. the matter was duly enquired into by the B.D.P.O., who submitted a report on 11.6.1998. During this enquiry, Sarvshri Om Parkash, Jagdish and Kartar had given affidavits in favour of the petitioners to the effect that they were being falsely implicated and taking this into consideration, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The F.I.R. and the subsequent proceedings being actuated by personal mala fides and the matters having already been enquired into by independent agencies, according to the petitioners, should be quashed. Even otherwise, the ultimate chance of conviction of the petitioners is very bleak and on this ground too, the same cannot be sustained.
(3.) IN the written reply filed by respondent No. 1 it is submitted that after the completion of the investigation the challan had been presented in Court on 17.11.1998. It was also asserted that the evidence collected indicated commission of an offence under Sections 379 and 409 IPC. Not only 6 trees had been cut by the petitioners out of a piece of land where they were not in any way obstructing the flow of the course of water, they had also cut 3 trees from the land of cremation ground of village Bukharkhera. As the trees were not causing any obstruction to the flow of water, the resolution alleged to have been passed by the Gram Panchayat is of no consequence. The reports of the B.D.P.O. and S.E.P.O. were stated to be procured by the petitioners as also the affidavits of Om Parkash, Jagdish and Kartar. These reports, it was submitted, do not help the case of the petitioners in any way as the opinion contained therein is no substitute for the trial, which the petitioners are required to face before the Criminal Court. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the petition was without merit and ought to be dismissed.;