AMARESH KU.SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the original record of the criminal case No. 285/93 State v. B.G. Singh and Ors.
(2.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 29.6.1993 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, where by he took cognizance of the offences under Sections 436 and 380 I.P.C. against the petitioner B.G. Singh and R.S. Verma as well as against Prithvi Jakhad and Gulab Chand on the basis of the Final report submitted under Section 173 Cr. P.C. In short the allegation are that in front of Central State Farm there were shops constructed by the Farm and near those shops the complainant Milakh Raj set up cabins in which he was running shop of cycle repair. Milakh Raj obtained land from Municipal Board on payment of licence fee but it appears from the record that for the last few years before the alleged occurrence the Municipal Board refused to accept the licence fee. Apprehending demolition of cabin Milakh Raj filed a writ petition in which on 12.2.1991 the learned Single Judge without deciding the question whether Milakh Raj was or was not a licensee directed the Municipal Board to evict Milakh Raj who was petitioner in that petition in accordance with law and not by force. It was further directed by the learned Single Judge that it will be open for the Municipal Board to evict the petitioner after complying with due process of law and they would not evict the petitioner without following due process of law.
(3.) ACCORDING to the allegations made by Milakh Raj in his complaint dated 23.11.1991, on 30.8.1991, when he went to Bhawansar leaving the servant Inderjeet at cycle repair shop, attempt was made to forcibly evict him. It was stated in the complaint that at about 6.00 P.M. when he (Milakh Raj) returned to Suratgarh and when he just reached near bus stand he saw that in front of his shop a crowd had collected. When he went near the shop he found that B.G. Singh, Prithvi Singh and 25 -30 persons were demolishing his shop and the goods were being removed from the shop to the truck No. RSK 8060 and to two tractors. It was further alleged in the complaint that the complainant drew the attention of B.G. Singh to the order passed by the High Court but no need was paid to it. During the incident telephone and electricity connection were cut and demolition of the shop continued in spite of the protest and this conduct on the part of the persons, who were involved in the demolition of the shop, attracted the public. It was also alleged in the complaint that on account of fear B.G. Singh asked the persons accompanying him to set fire to the goods which could not be placed in the truck and tractor and one R.S. Verma (Overseer) set fire to those goods. Through his servant the complainant further came to know that B.G. Singh and other persons had gone to the shop at 4.30 P.M. and B.G. Singh had forcibly dragged Inderjeet out of the shop by holding his coller and at that time notice was given and goods were taken out of the shop and were thrown out and at that time photographer was called and he took photographs. It was also alleged in the complaint that the persons who were involved in the incident had common object of demolishing the shop and of committing theft and that they included Dinesh Chandra Security Officer, C.S.F, R.S.Raghuvansh Administrative Officer of Suratgarh, Gulab Chand Bansal belonging to Nagar Palika, Suratgarh, Rama Kant Sanitary Inspector, Nasib Chand Officer, R.S. Verma, Overseer, it was further stated in the complaint that when the complainant reached the Police Station to lodge the first information report the Station House Officer of the Police Station refused to register the case. With the complaint a list was also given which contained the description of as many as 18 items which had been removed from the shop of the complainant. The complaint submitted by Milakh Raj was forwarded to Station House Officer of the Police Station, Suratgarh under Section 156(3) Cr PC for investigation.;