SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SATNAM Singh petitioner has filed the present petition for the quashment of FIR No.217 dated 12.8.96 under Section 379 IPC registered in police station Rania, Annexure P.1, along with subsequent proceedings. Before I proceed further it may be mentioned here at the first instance that though the case was registered under Section 379 IPC but the police decided to prosecute the petitioner under Section 447 IPC as in the opinion of the investigating agency the petitioner did not commit any theft, however, he committed criminal trespass punishable under Section 447 IPC. FIR was registered with respect to the land which is in cultivating possession of the petitioner but regarding that proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC started and vide order dated 16.4.96 it was ordered to be put under attachment and Naib Tehsildar, Ellenabad was ordered to be appointed as receiver and he was directed to take the possession of the land in dispute. Before he could actually take the possession of the land, the petitioner filed a revision against that order and get stay order on 7.5.96 from the Revisional Court and the operation of the order under Section 146 Cr. PC was stayed. Even before the start of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC, the stay was obtained by the petitioner from a civil court on 16.4.96. The stand of the State is also that no doubt the offence under Section 379 IPC is not made out, but it has come during the course of investigation that the petitioner has been interfering in the possession over the land in dispute despite the fact that it had been attached under Section 145 Cr. PC and receiver stood appointed. It is nowhere alleged by the respondent. that the possession of this land was ever taken by the receiver or that there is any entry in the revenue record to this effect regarding the delivery of possession to the receiver. In these circumstances it was replied by the respondent that the petitioner has been challenged under section 447 IPC.

(2.) THE precised and legal question for determination is whether the petitioner is guilty under section 441 IPC which is the defining section and can be punished under section 447 IPC. Criminal trespass is that whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimmidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence.

(3.) ONCE the possession of property had never taken from the hands of the petitioner to the receiver, in these circumstances it cannot be said that the offence of criminal trespass has been prima facie committed. The entire snag of the present case is that possession was never handed over to the receiver before the implementation of the order appointing receiver. The Revisional Court had already stayed this order and its effect. In this view of the matter; no offence under Section 441 I.P.C. was made out which could be punished under section 447 IPC.