LAXMI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceeding in Criminal Case No. 618/1986 (The State of Rajasthan v. Laxmi Narain) pending in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pali.

(2.) OM Prakash S/o Shri Mool Chand filed a written report on April 7, 1983 at Police Station, Pali, to the effect that he is in possession of a Nohra No. 7 situated in Mohallah Paliwalon Ka in Pali city since November 20, 1981, when his father expired. On April 6, 1983, at about 7.30 p.m., when he returned to his house, he was informed that Laxmi Narain has broken the lock and tried to enter into the Nohra, but he was not allowed to enter into it. On the basis of this information, a First Information Report was registered Under Sections 447, 323 and 379, I.P.C. and the police, after necessary investigation, presented a challan against the petitioner Under Section 447, I.P.C. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pali, took the cognizance against the petitioner on May 10,1983.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that from the bare reading of the First Information Report and the relevant evidence collected by the prosecution, no case Under Section 447, I.P.C. is made -out against the petitioner. He has further submitted that a civil suit with respect to the same property is pending in the Civil Court, Pali, and the matter is sub -judice before the Civil Court, Pali. This criminal proceeding has been initiated by the complainant against the petitioner just to harass him. Even the 'PATTA' of this house (Nohra) is in the name of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has, also, submitted that though the challan in this case was filed on May 10, 1983, and the incident is alleged to have taken place on April 7, 1983, but uptill now, not even a single witness has been examined and the trial has been delayed for no fault of the petitioner and looking to the nature of the offence, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that merely delay in the proceedings cannot be made a ground for quashing the proceedings. He has further submitted that at the time of taking the cognizance and framing the charge, the Court is not required to maticulously go into the evidence and even if there is a strong suspicion against the accused, the matter can be proceeded with.