Back
2006 Supreme(All) 2658
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Prafulla C.Pant
BALWANT SINGH CHUPHAL
Versus
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Decided On : 25 September 2006
Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 2004, And Criminal Misc. Application No, 19 of 2004
The sufficiency of evidence and the maintainability of criminal proceedings in a civil dispute were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Case - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 454, 380 & 506 I. PC. - [441, 454, 380, 506] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and its applicability to the offence of criminal trespass. It also considered the nature of the dispute between the parties and the maintainability of criminal proceedings in such cases. The court referred to various legal principles and judgments to determine the sufficiency of evidence and the role of the court in quashing criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of a criminal case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, based on various grounds including lack of offence, errors in taking cognizance, and non-maintainability of criminal proceedings in a civil dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the pleas raised by the petitioners can be addressed before the trial court and that their innocence can be asserted there. It also directed the trial court to dispose of the bail applications without unreasonable delay.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of criminal trespass under Section 441 of the I.P.C., the nature of the dispute between the parties, errors in the charge sheets, and the sufficiency of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offence of criminal trespass under Section 441 of the I.P.C. does not require a notice for the offence of house-breaking punishable under Section 454. It also determined that the nature of the dispute does not preclude the maintainability of criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to address the issues raised by the petitioners.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Ramesh Chandra Pandey "pathik", Advocate lodged an First In formation Report against petitioner Balwant Singh Chuphal relating to an incident dated 7-8- 2002, in which it is alleged that he was tenant in two shops situated in Heera Nagar, Haldwani, be longing to Parvatiya Sanskritik Utthan Manch. It is further alleged in the First Information Report that when informant Ramesh Chandra Pandey was out of sta tion due to pilgrimage to Amarnath Yatra, petitioner Balwant Singh Chuphal with the help of some persons, broke open the shops and removed
goods in cluding printing press which was being run by wife of complainant, in one of the shops. On his return from Amarnath Yatra informant Ramesh Chandra Pandey lodged the First Information Report which was registered at Case Crime No. 2472 of 2002. It appears that after investigation a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner Balwant Singh Chuphal and a separate charge sheet was filed against the other petition ers namely, Bhuwan Chandra Joshi, Pooran Upadhyay, Hemant Bagadwal, Rajesh Harbola, Arun Pandey and Bhuwan Joshi S/o Heera Ballabh Joshi.
4. The petitioners have challenged the criminal proceedings pending against them before the Trial Court on various grounds. It is alleged in the petition that no offence is made out against the pe titioners. The statements of witnesses un der Section 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded by the Investigating Officer more than once. It is alleged that the Magistrate has erred in law in taking cognizance on the impugned charge sheet. The charge sheets are also challenged on the ground that for an offence punishable under Section 441 I. P. C. (as amended vide U. P. Act No. 31of1961) a 15 days notice was required to be served on the accused which was not done as such of fence punishable under Section 454 I. P. C. has not been made out. As to the offence punishable under Section 406 I. P. C. the petitioners have alleged that the said offence is non cognizable. The criminal proceedings are also challenged on the ground that the House in ques tion belongs to Parvatiya Sanskritik Utthan Manch against whom proceed ings would have been drawn only through its Secretary.
5. Sri RM. N. Singh, learned coun sel for the petitioner Balwant Singh Chuphal argued that an offence of "criminal trespass", defined under Sec tion 441 of the I. P. C. (as amended by U. P. Act No. 31 of 1961), requires prior notice of 15 days to withdraw from the possession. The said Section 441 as amended by aforesaid U. P. Act (appli cable in Uttaranchal) reads as under :
"441 Criminal trespass"- whoever en ters into or upon property in posses sion of another with intent to com mit an offence or to intimidate, in sult or annoy any person in posses sion of such property, or, having law fully entered into or upon such prop erty, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to in intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with in tent to commit an offence, or hav ing entered into or upon such prop erty, whether before or after the com ing into force of the Criminal Law (U. P. Amendment) Act, 1961, with the intention of taking unauthorized possession or making unauthorized use of such property fails to withdraw from such property or its possession or use, when called upon to do so by that another person by notice in writ ing, duly served upon him, by the date specified in the notice, is said to commit criminal trespass".
The above definition of C
