HARPHOOL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge framing the charges against the petitioners under sections 418/468/471/448/34 IPC, the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short referred to as the "Code") for quashing the same and for discharging them from the case. The facts in short which are relevant for purposes of deciding the present petition are :

(2.) That on March 1, 1988 one Jagjit Singh, the complainant filed a complaint with the police alleging inter alia that he was the owner of land being plot No.46 measuring 150 sq.yds. in khasra No-502, village Nawada, Bhagwati Garden, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi and that the same had been unauthorisedly occupied by some persons. On the basis of the investigation carried out by the police on the said complaint, it came to its knowledge that the petitioners had occupied the same and FIR under Section 448/34 Indian Penal Code was, therefore, registered against them. On further investigation it came to the notice of the police that one Mr.Naval Singh was the owner of this land; he had sold it in May. 1974 as plot No.46 measuring 150 sq.yds. to Jagjit Singh, the complainant, and in 1986/87 he sub-divided the same plot into two parts and sold one plot No.54 to the petitioners in the same khasra number; that in khasra No.506 there was no plot being No.54 and the said plot No.54 was in khasra No.502 and it was the same plot which had earlier been sold by Naval Singh to the complainant Jagjit Singh; on the basis of the sale deed executed by Naval Singh in favour of the petitioners, they had occupied it unauthorisedly. As Naval Singh is alleged to have sold the plot on the basis of forged documents, a case under section 420/468/471/448/34 Indian Penal Code was registered against him. The Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges under section 418/468/471/34 Indian Penal Code against Naval Singh while against the petitioners charge under section 448/34 Indian Penal Code was framed.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioners filed a petition under section 397 of the Code before the Court of Sessions which was assigned for disposal to the Additional Sessions Judge. The order of the Metropolian Magistrate was challenged mainly on the ground that no case held been made out against the petitioners as they were the bonafide purchasers of the property being plot No.54 in khasra No.506 and that the plot ofthe complainant was other than the plot which had been sold to them byNaval Singh. It was, therefore, stated that they could not be said to be trespassers. It was also stated in the revision petition that according to the complainant himself the petitioners had occupied the plot on 2nd December, 1986 and the complaint was lodged on March 12, 1988. The offence, if any, under section 488 was, therefore, allegedly barred by time in as much as the same was punishable for a maximum period of one year and the period of limitation for the Court to take cognizance of the said offence was one year from the date of the alleged commission of offence and admittedly the complaint itself having been filed after a period of almost two years, the learned Magistrate could not take cognizance of the same and the petitioners were, therefore, entitled to be discharged. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the petitioners and prosecution instead of quashing the charge directed the charge to be framed against the petitioners under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code Being aggrieved by this order of Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners have filed the present petition.