Back
2005 Supreme(Raj) 50
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : H.R. Panwar
Mahaveer Prasad - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 797 of 2003
Decided On : 01/06/2005
Mr. G.R. Punia, for the Petitioners.
Mr. J.P.S. Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
Mr. Sajjan Singh, for the Respondent No. 2.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that trespass is a continuing offence, and criminal proceedings can be maintained even if the dispute is of a civil nature, provided the complaint discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence.
Headnote:
Trespass - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 472, IPC, Section 468, CrPC, Alpic Finance Ltd. vs. P. Sadasivan & Anr., 2001 (3) SCC 513, M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh & Anr., 2001 (8) SCC 645, Jagdish Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004 SC 1734
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought setting aside of the judgment and order passed by the revisional Court, which allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant-respondent No. 2 and set aside the order passed by the trial Court. The dispute was regarding trespass over a cote (Bada) and the police filed a negative final report treating the dispute as of civil nature.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court erred in dismissing the protest petition based on the ground of limitation and in accepting the negative final report by treating the dispute as of a civil nature. The revisional Court appreciated the facts and law in the right perspective.
Issues: The issues included the treatment of the dispute as a continuing offence, the applicability of Section 472, CrPC, and the consideration of civil nature of the dispute in criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that trespass is a continuing offence and the matter is covered by Section 472, CrPC. It also emphasized that criminal proceedings can continue even if the dispute is of a civil nature, provided the complaint discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence.
Final Decision: The miscellaneous petition was dismissed as lacking merit, and the stay petition was also disposed of.
H.R. Panwar, J.-By this miscellaneous petition under Section 482, CrPC, the petitioners seek setting aside of the Judgment and order dated 24.03.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu (for short, "the revisional Court" hereinafter), by which the revisional Court allowed the revision petition filed by complainant-respondent No. 2 and set-aside the order dated 04.06.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) and remanded the case to the trial Court for deciding the matter as per law after hearing the parties.
2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for decision of this miscellaneous petition are that complainant-respondent No. 2 filed an FIR with the Police Station, Bhanipura to the effect that on 111.1996, at about 8:00 AM, accused-petitioners Mahaveer Prasad, Shankar Lal and Bhera Ram, with a common intention, trespassed over the cote (Bada) and took forcible possession over the cote. It was alleged in the FIR that the complainant-respondent No. 2 was having possession over the said cote (Bada) for about 20 to 30 years. On this report, the investigation ensued and after investigation, the police filed a negative final report. Complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition, which had been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 04.06.2001. Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2001 of the trial Court, the complainant-respondent No. 2 preferred a revision petition before the revisional Court, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 24.03.2003. Hence, this
miscellaneous petition.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for complainant-respondent No. 2. Perused the orders passed by the Courts below.
4. The police filed the negative final report treating the dispute to be of civil nature. The trial Court, accepting the negative final report and dismissed the protest petition on the ground that the offence under Section 447, IPC, is punishable with imprisonment for three months and as such the report should have been lodged within one year but the report has been lodged about three years after the alleged trespass, therefore, no cognizance can be taken of the aforesaid offence.
5. Section 472, CrPC, pertains to continuing offence and provides that in the case of continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues. Trespass is susceptible of continuance and does not end on the date on which it is initially committed.
6. In Beguram vs. Jaipur Udhyog Ltd., 1987 CrLR 304 (Raj.), a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that trespass is a continuing offence and the matter is covered by Section 472, CrPC, which expressly provides that in the case of continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues. The Court further observed that continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance as is distinguishable from one which is committed once and for all.
7. In M/s. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. vs. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath & Ors., 1991 (1) Crimes 556, the Honble Supreme Court held that the concept of continuing offence does not wipe out the original guilt but it keeps the contravention alive day by day. The Apex Court further observed as under:-
"Trespass by way of personal entry is a continuing injury, lastly as long as the personal presence of the wrongdoer, and giving rise to actions de die in diem so long as it lasts, is sufficiently obvious. It is well settled, however, that the same characteristic belongs in law even to those trespass which consists in placing things upon the plaintiff s land. Such a trespass continues until it has been abated by the removal of the thing which is thus trespassing; successive sections will lie from day to day until it is so removed; and in each action damages (unless awarded in lieu of an injuncti
