BALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, petitioner seeks for quashing of FIR No. 183 dated 20.7.1999, under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda and orders dated 9.6.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda and dated 1.12.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda.

(2.) FACTS , in brief, are that on 21.5.1999 Gurpal Singh Romana, respondent No. 2, made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda stating therein that on 3.5.1998 Baljit Singh, petitioner, along with Gulab Singh and one Manvinder Singh forcibly entered into his field bearing khasra Nos. 4165, 4166, 4169 and 4170 situated at Patti Jhuti. They took away the wheat crop after harvesting the same with a combine. Complainant-respondent No. 2 approached the Incharge, Police Post Vardhman, Bathinda, with a complaint, who visited the spot and found the aforementioned persons taking away the wheat crop from the land as mentioned above. On an inquiry made by the Incharge, Police Post Vardhman, Bathinda the petitioner and the aforementioned persons informed him that they were owners of the land. Accordingly, a DDR was lodged in the Police Post on 3.5.1998, but no action was taken against the guilty persons by the police.

(3.) CHARGE -sheet was submitted before the learned Magistrate on 11.4.2000, but by that time, Gulab Singh had already expired. Ultimately, charge against the petitioner was framed on 9.6.2004. Aggrieved against the order dated 9.6.2004, petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which was dismissed vide order dated 1.12.2004 (Annexure P-2). It is pleaded that order dated 9.6.2004 framing charge against the petitioner and order dated 1.12.2004 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, cannot be sustained in view of the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as cognizance could not be taken by the learned Magistrate, after the expiry of three years of the occurrence.