RISHI PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is for quashing of an FIR No. 2 dated 02.01.2009 (Annexure P-3) under Sections 453/506 IPC registered at Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that a complaint dated 02.01.2009 (Annexure P-2) under Section 453/506 IPC was filed by respondent No. 2 stating therein that the houses in Raunaq Nagar, Ganaur were requisitioned by the District Magistrate, Sonepat for the residence of the Administrative Officers vide order dated 05.12.2008. On 26.12.2008, the complainant, who was posted as a Naib Tehsildar Ganaur, along with Tehsildar, Ganaur went to take the possession of the house, in which the petitioner was residing on the basis of the order dated 05.12.2008 issued by the District Magistrate, Sonepat under the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Punjab Act'). The petitioner, who was earlier posted as Naib Tehsildar Ganaur, was in occupation of the house but after the issuance of order dated 05.12.2008, he was illegally occupying the same by way of house trespass. A request was made by the complainant-respondent No. 2 and Tehsildar, Ganaur to the petitioner to vacate the house and also apprised him of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Sonepat but the petitioner became furious and shunted out the complainant and the Tehsildar, Ganaur from the house and warned them that if they again asked him to vacate the house then they shall face dire consequences. On this basis, it was alleged that this act of the petitioner would amount to commission of an offence punishable under Sections 453/506 IPC. The said complaint was sent under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur to the S.H.O. Police Station, Ganaur for registration of an FIR against the petitioner. The said complaint resulted in registration of FIR No. 2 dated 02.01.2009, which is impugned herein by the petitioner.

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the act of the petitioner in continuing in possession of the house in question without any authority in law cannot be said to be justified in the light of the fact that the petitioner stood transferred from his place of posting. He further contends that in the light of the fact that the petitioner was occupying the house without an authority, the offence of Section 453 IPC is fully made out. He further contends that as the petitioner had threatened the complainant and the Tehsildar, Ganaur, who had gone to his house to implement the order dated 05.12 2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonepat, offence under Section 506 IPC is clearly made out. He, on this basis, submits that the FIR registered against the petitioner cannot be quashed. However, he has no answer to the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the Punjab Act is not applicable to the State of Haryana in the light of the fact that the State of Haryana had enacted Act No. 35 of 1973 titled as 'The Haryana Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1973'.