BALDEV SINGH Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Through the instant petition filed under Sec. 561-A Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of the criminal complaint No.65/Complaint under Ss. 426, 427 and 379 RPC and order dtd. 10/11/2017, by which the court of learned Munsiff, Reasi has taken the cognizance against the petitioners for the commission of aforesaid offences.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Nos.2 and 4, who are Tehsildar, Katra and S.H.O. Reasi, respectively having protection of Sec. 197 Cr.P.C, besides this petitioner No.1, who is a Police Head Constable and petitioner No. 3 is a Patwari of Village Kotli Manotrian, in discharge of their official duty conducted the demarcation of the common path. That the petitioner No.5, who is a resident of Village Kotli, Manotrian having his moveable and immovable property, there is a common pathway leading towards the house of the petitioner No.5, which was encroached upon by the respondent and thereafter, he lodged a criminal complaint with petitioner No.4, who assigned the investigation of the case to petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No.1 in order to establish the offence under Ss. 447, 427, RPC made a communication with the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 to conduct the demarcation of the land so as to ascertain whether the respondent is the owner of the land or not, beside this the common passage has been encroached by the respondent, consequently, the Revenue Department headed by petitioner No.3 conducted the demarcation of the land being Tehsildar, Katra and submitted the report to the Investigating Officer alleging therein that the land falling under Khasra No.1481/1056 measuring 11 marlas, which is a Gair Mumkin Rasta leading towards the cremation ground and fall within the definition of common land has been encroached by the respondent. That the petitioner No.1 on the basis of the revenue record/report submitted by the Tehsildar and Patwari i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 closed the investigation and submitted the final report in terms of Sec. 173 Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Reasi with a request to initiate the proceedings under Sec. 182 RPC against the respondent. That the respondent instead of filing the protest petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and just in order to take revenge with the petitioners, who as per the respondent did not favour him during the course of investigation, filed a criminal complaint for the commission of offence punishable under Ss. 426, 427, 379 RPC alleging that the Gate of the house was removed by the petitioner No.5. The learned Munsiff, Reasi without taking into consideration that there is a closure report filed by the Investigating Agency i.e. the petitioner No.1 on the report submitted by the petitioner No.2 and 3 took the cognizance just in a routine manner without drawing any satisfaction and the petitioner Nos.2 and 5 who are the Gazetted Officers having protection of Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. besides this the investigation as well as the demarcation was conducted just while discharging their official duty, which cannot be questioned or no cognizance can be taken by any court of law qua the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer summoned the petitioners.