HARMOHINDER KAUR SANDHU,J - (1.) KARNAIL Singh has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint Annexure P/1 under Sections 379/506 I.P.C. and the summoning order dated 17.8.1989 Annexure P/2 and all proceedings relating thereto.
(2.) THE complaint Annexure P/1 was filed by Risal Singh respondent against the petitioner and 17 others on the allegations that his father Shri Soran owned seven killas of land situated in the area of village Samani, Land of Roop Singh, uncle of the petitioner, adjoined the land of Shri Soran. About 10-12 years before the filing of the complaint, father of the complainant planted 72 eucalyptus trees in his land close to the boundary. Roop Singh and his sons tried to cut those trees which led Shri Soran to file a civil suit in the civil courts at Karnal. An interim injunction was granted in that suit restraining Shri Roop Singh and his sons from cutting the trees and interfering in the lawful possession of the father of the complainant. The matter was also reported to the police, but the police did not take any action and simply initiated security proceedings against both the parties. On 12.1.1988 at about 8.00 P.M. Roop Singh and 17 other accused came to the land armed with deadly weapons and started cutting the trees. They were asked to refrain from doing so as there was injunction order against them and the trees did not belong to them, but they cut the trees and took away the same on tractors. They also threatened the complainant with dire consequences. A report was made regarding this incident to the police at Police Station, Butana, but no action was taken. After preliminary evidence was recorded the trial Court found that prima facie case was made out against the accused for offences under Sections 379, 506 IPC. Hence they were summoned to stand trial for these offences vide order Annexure P/2. Out of 18 accused, 11 of them assailed the order of summoning by filing a revisions petition which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide order Annexure P/4. The Sessions Judge held that although all the accused were named in the complaint yet the witnesses examined at preliminary stage did not name them specifically except Roop Singh, Karnail Singh and Gurnam Singh. It was, therefore, held that no prima facie case was made out against those persons, but revision petition of Roop Singh and Gurnam Singh was dismissed and they were directed to appear in the trial Court for further proceedings in the case. The present petitioner Karnail Singh had not preferred any revision petition and he invoked the inherent powers of this Court after revision petition of Roop Singh and Gurnam Singh was dismissed.
(3.) THE petitioner alleged that Roop Singh had got the land demarcated and the revenue officials found that the trees which were removed were standing on the land of Roop Singh. Civil litigation was already pending between the parties and the trees were cut under the bonafide belief that the same belonged to Roop Singh so owner of the trees could not be held liable for any offence of theft.;