HEMANBHAI V PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case appears to be that the respondent No.2 filed complaint before the Chief Judicial magistrate, Surat being Criminal Case No.1432 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 170, 408, 409, 416, 418, 420, 460 of IPC on the accusation that for laying down pipeline in the agricultural land of the complainant, the signatures were taken on the agreement and the compensation paid is much less in comparison to the compensation paid to the other adjacent land owners. The additional allegation is also made that the accused identified themselves to be government servant and the complainant's mother was made to sign the agreement and based on the said accusation it has been stated that the offences have been committed. The learned Magistrate had examined the complaint. Thereafter, the process was issued by him for the alleged offences as mentioned in the complaint. Under the circumstances, the present petition for quashing of the complaint.

(2.) It appears that the accused in the complaint have undertaken the work of laying down the pipeline for gas for and on behalf of the Gujarat Gas Company. As such lying down the pipeline for such purpose is governed by the provisions of The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)) Act,1962 read with the relevant Rules. As per the provisions of the said Act, if the compensation is paid of a lesser amount, the person has right to raise the dispute and the matter is required to be referred to the concerned Court and thereafter the issue of additional compensation can also be decided. The case of the petitioner is that the action was taken for laying down the pipelines in the agricultural land and the compensation was to be paid for that purpose.

(3.) The grievance on the part of the complainant, as contended by Mr.Patel for the respondent No.2, is that a negligible compensation has been paid and the action was not by the exercise of the power or under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, but was by way of consent agreement and the pipeline has been laid down as per the alleged agreement over which the signature was taken by misrepresentation and fraud and negligible amount of compensation has been paid.