The court ruled that allegations of encroachment constituted a cognizable offence, affirming that limitation does not apply to continuing wrongs and that civil proceedings do not bar criminal prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 123/2016 dated 28^th April 2016, registered at Police Station, Dhalli, Shimla for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR and charges framed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 1, Shimla (learned Trial Court) on 7^th June 2024, in a casetitled State versus Babli. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner in which they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a complaint was filed before the police against the petitioner/accused asserting that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh had directed the registration of the FIR in cases of encroachment of Forest land in CWPIL No. 17/2014 titled Court on its own motion versus the State of HP vide order dated 27^th February 2016. The petitioner had encroached upon 10 Biswas of Forest land in U-257 Kumahali bearing Khasra Nos. 135/1 and 135/2. She constructed a house in three Biswas of land bearing Khasra No.135/2 and encroached 7 Biswas of land in Khasra No. 135/1. Eight weeks were given to her to vacate the land and remove the encroachment but she failed to do so; hence it was requested that an FIR be registered against her. The police registered the FIR and conducted an investigation. The police found that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by encroaching upon the Forest land. Hence the police filed a charge sheet against the accused before the Competent Court. Learned Trial Court ordered the framing of charges against the accused.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, filing of charge sheet and framing of charges, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking their quashing. It is asserted that paternal relatives of the petitioner executed a Will in her favour on 4^th April 1986 and bequeathed the land in village Chanana and Nehra Kumahali to her. A mutation was sanctioned in her favour on 22^nd May 1987. The petitioner was told in the year 2002 that the land bequeathed to her was forest land. The petitioner disputed this claim. No demarcation was conducted in her presence. The petitioner filled up a form for the regularization of land as per the scheme formulated by the State Government. The State Government initiated the proceedings under HP Public Premises and Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1971 by serving a show cause notice dated 19^th September 2006 upon the petitioner. The petitioner contested the proceedings. The collector passed an order of eviction on 1^st August 2016 against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 9^th March 2017. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was registered as CWP No. 1348 of 2017 titled Smt. Babli Thakur versus State of HP. The High Court stayed the operation of the eviction order. The matter is pending before the High Court. The initiation of criminal proceedings was barred by limitation. The contents of the FIR and the statements of witnesses do not show the date of the commission of the offence. No prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The ingredients of Section 441 were not alleged in the complaint. The allegations in the FIR are contradictory and do not constitute the commission of any cognizable offence. The matter is pending before the High Court and the continuation of proceedings before the Criminal Court is an abuse of the process of law. There is no chance of conviction of the petitioner. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed, FIR, consequential proceedings and the charge framed by the Court be quashed.

4. I have heard M/s Chandranarayan Singh and Devender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, lea