HARBANS KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that 350 acres of land was leased out to Tata Steel 99 years for setting up an industry at Adityapur. Over the said land, as per the case of the petitioners, an industry known as Tata Growth Shop (TGS) was established, still show cause was issued for cancellation of the deed of lease to the extent of 150 acres of land on the ground that the land to the aforesaid extent has not been utilized as yet. That was replied with that it is wrong on the part of the authority to say that the land had not been utilized, rather it has well been utilized by setting up different units of the industry by making investment of huge money. However, an order was passed for cancellation of deed of lease with respect to 100 acres of land. That was challenged before this Court, vide W.P. (C ) No.6042 of 2008 wherein this Court, vide order dated 13.1.2009 passed an order for maintaining status quo with regard to the possession. When such order was passed, the Managing Director of Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority ( AIADA) asked Deputy Development Officer, AIADa, Adityapur, Jamshedpur (informant) to make inspection and get the photograph of the land in question. Pursuant to the order when he along with others came to the gate of the premises of Tata Growth Shop on 5.10.2010, the petitioner no.1 put obstruction so that the informant and his team may not enter into the premises. However, they anyhow entered into the premises and came near the land in question where they had to take measurement of the land and it was tobe photographed. As soon as members of the team started taking photograph of the land, petitioner no.2 came over there and abused them. Thereupon both the petitioners snatched the camera. On such allegation, a case was lodged which was registered as Gamaharia P.S. case no.59 of 2010 under Sections 353, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the allegation that the petitioners prevented the informant and other persons being public servants from discharging their public duties by using criminal force.

(2.) ON institution of the case, this Criminal Misc. was filed for quashing of the F.I.R. However, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence under Sections 353, 379, 504 and 506/34 was taken, vide order dated 24.6.2011. The same was challenged through an interlocutory application. Mr.Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that when an order was passed by this Court with respect to maintenance of status quo with respect to possession over the land, the informant or his companion had no occasion/authority to enter into the premises of the Tata Growth Shop, still they came over there on the plea of taking measurement of the land as such, they cannot be said to have come in discharge of public duty and thereby no offence is made out under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. R.C.P.Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submitted that under the provision of the Industrial Area Development Authority Act, the informant and also other persons, who had accompanied him, are the public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, who under the Act do have authority to enter into the premises leased out to others for making inspection, verification for the purpose of knowing the current status of the unit to know as to whether it is running or not and thereby it can be said that the informant and others had come to the premises of Tata Growth Shop in discharge of their public duty, in course of which, criminal force was used deterring them from discharging their duties by putting obstruction and taking camera away from the possession of the persons and hence, the court below has rightly taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 353, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. I do find sufficient force in the submission advanced on behalf of the opposite party no.2. From the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and on perusal of F.I.R, it does appear that when an order was passed regarding maintenance of status quo by this Court, the informant under the instruction of the Managing Director of AIADA came to make inspection to the land in question. According to the petitioners, informant had no authority to make such inspection as an order had been passed by this Court for maintenance of the status quo regarding possession.