SUSHILA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dtd. 18/3/2016 [Annexure-P/1(B)], passed in Criminal Revision No.05 of 2016 (Smt. Sushila and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh], whereby the Revisional Court has affirmed the order dtd. 5/12/2015 [Annexure=P/1(A)], passed in Criminal Case No.624 of 2014 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Smt. Sushila and another), by which the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 468(2)(b) of CrPC, claiming the complaint filed by the respondents herein under Ss. 36 & 37 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short the "Act of 1973") to be beyond the period of limitation prescribed therein, has been rejected finding no merit.

(2.) The respondents herein, on 22/8/2014, have filed complaint under Ss. 36 & 37 of the Act of 1973 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari alleging that in an enquiry dtd. 12/7/2010 it has been revealed that petitioners herein have constructed suit house unauthorizedly at Village Gokulpur, Khasra No.77/14, Rakba 0.022 hectares, Patwari Halka No.18/55, R.I. Division, Tehsil and District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), for which they were noticed twice on 5/5/2012 & 27/6/2014, but no reply has been filed and despite serving notice for removal of said unauthorized/illegal construction, the same has not been removed, which is an offence punishable under Ss. 36 & 37 of the Act of 1973. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari took cognizance upon the said complaint filed by the respondents herein and summons were issued to the petitioners herein. Upon receipt of summons, petitioner herein appeared before the learned CJM, Dhamtari and filed application under Sec. 468(2)(b) of CrPC on 27/7/2015 stating that the construction in question has already been completed in the year 2005-06 and at the relevant point of time, Village Gokulpur comes within the ambit of Gram Panchayat Rudri and, therefore, they have taken no objection certificate from gram panchayat and constructed the house in question, and, as such, the complaint filed by the respondent herein is beyond the period of limitation and same is liable to be rejected. Learned CJM, Dhamtari by its order dtd. 5/12/2015 rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein, against which revision was preferred and by way of impugned order dtd. 18/3/2016 said revision has also been dismissed affirming the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(3.) Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the learned Courts below are absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application of the petitioners and not holding the complaint filed by the respondents herein as barred by limitation, as such, the impugned order and the complaint filed by the respondents under Sec. 36 & 37 of the Act of 1973 deserves to be quashed.