Hem Chand vs State of H.P. and anothers

Chander Bhusan Barowalia,J.

1.The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been maintained by the petitioner, for quashing and setting aside the

proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., in complaint No. 7-1-17, whereby the petitioner

has been summoned, under Sections 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.

The facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that respondent No. 2/complainant (hereinafter to be called as “the

complainantâ€) filed a complaint before Police Station, Barsar, wherein it has been alleged that about 1-½ year(s) ago he has cut two eucalyptus

trees from his land, comprised in Khata No. 418, Khasra No. 782 and its logs were kept over in the said land. On 05.02.2011, the complainant

received a telephone from his brother, who told him that the petitioner with the help of a labourer has taken away the logs of the complainant. On the

basis of which, F.I.R. No. 32/11, dated 27.02.2011, under Sections 379 and 447 IPC was registered against the petitioner. The learned trial Court vide

order dated 06.05.2017, hold that the prima facie case is against the petitioner and issue summons to him under Sections 379 and 447 of the IPC.

Hence the present petition for quashing and setting the order dated 06.05.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the land from which the eucalyptus trees were cut, belongs to the brother of the petitioner and by

lifting the logs from his brother’s land, the petitioner has not committed any crime and no case is made out against him, so the present petition may

be allowed and summoning order passed by the learned trial Court may be quashed, alongwith all pending proceedings.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that the petitioner trespassed the land, which is in possession of the

complainant and removed the logs from the land without the permission of the complainant, so there is prima facie case against him and order of

learned trial Court, summoning the petitioner, needs no interference.

Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the Police after completing investigation has concluded that no case is made out against the

petitioner and thereafter filed cancellation report before the learned trial Court.

To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the records in detail.

From the records it is clear that though the Police has filed cancellation report on the ground that eucalyptus trees were cut by the complainant from

the land of his brother, however by leading cogent evidence before the learned trial Court, the complainant has brought sufficient material before the

Court that there was dispute with respect to the land and the logs were in the possession of the complainant. Even it is presumed that logs were cut

from the land of the petitioner’s brother, then also they were in legal possession of the complainant and prima facie there is material to proceed

against the petitioner, when from the legal possession of the complainant the goods were taken away.

Accordingly, this Court after going through the records, finds that there was prima facie case against the petitioner and learned trial Court has

rightly issued summons against the petitioner. Further the petitioner has a right to even argue on the charge after appearing before the Court. In these

circumstance, the order of the learned trial Court issuing summons, needs no interference.

The net result of the above discussion is that present petition sans merit, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if

any, shall also stands disposed of. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 31st May, 2018.