NEERAJ BANSAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the order dated 12.8.2005 and also to quash the charge sheet and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.1355 of 2005, State Vs/ Devendra Kuksal & others, U/s 420/467/468/471 IPC & 4/10 of the U.P. Protection of Trees Act 1976 {hereinafter to be referred as the Act }, pending before J.M.-I, Dehradun.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that on a complaint of illegal possession of the Municipality land and on being inspected, a bridge was found being constructed over the land of Municipality over culvert. The work was stopped immediately and when the revenue records were inspected it was found that in the name of petitioner, a land bearing Khasra No.44-Ka 01.34 hect., having transferable rights, was registered. It was also stated that the petitioner had applied for transfer of possession in the Municipality Property No.34/3 and also produced two registered deeds bearing Property No.34/3, however the Khasra number was found cut. When both the registered deeds were demanded from the Registrar Officer, it was found that there the property No.44/K was written and both the registered deeds are in the name of Devendra Kukshal. Hence it was stated that the fabrication was made in the records and thereby encroachment was made in excess of the own property by the petitioner and co-accused. Besides a report was given by Municipality that the encroachment over the other properties bearing Khasra No.44-Ka as well as some partial encroachments were also made in the other Khasra Nos.41, 42 and 43. Further some trees have also been cut and some trees were tried to be got dried. Thereafter the matter was investigated and during investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the petitioner, on the basis of which the J.M. First, Dehradun vide order dated 12.8.2005 took cognizance and summoned the petitioner u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC and 4(10) of the Act. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against him and the court below has wrongly summoned him. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the FIR lodged by the respondent no.2, the statements of the witnesses, namely, Sushil Kumar Kureel (respondent no.2), Madhvanand Uniyal, Rajendra Prasad Uniyal, Anand Singh Rawat, R.N. Onkar, G.P. Singh, Anil Kala, Krishnanad Chaubey and Rajesh Naithani, I find that the offences punishable u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC and 4(10) of the Act are prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioner to face trial.