@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.84? of 2010 PETITIONER: Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, through its duly constituted Attorney Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Baico Nagar, Distt. Korba (C G ) 2.‘ ii Additlonal Sessmns Judge (FTC) .. Dlstt Korbalr‘G) {Petition under Section 482 of the‘Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} RESPONDENTS: Present Mr Surendra Singh Senior Advocate With Mr Abhlshek Sinha dvocate for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jha Deputy Govt Advocate for the State/ espondent No 1 Single Bench: Hon’bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (14-2-201 1) 1. Heard.- . This is petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashment of the order ‘w v dated 30-1 0-2010 passed by the 2m Additional Sessions JUdge (FTC),‘ Korba in ST No.16/2010 relating to registration of- case and taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC. a . Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the, petitioner submits I) ' that as per operative part of the order impugned, Khasra No.224/1, area ’ 92.84 acres, has been shown as ‘bade jhad jangal’ in the revenue record, the petitioner has encroached over the land since 2007-08 in which chimney has been constructed at the instance of the petitioner, same has finally collapsed and case has been registered against certain accused persons excluding the ‘owners o'f Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO). Learned Senior Advocate further submits that if the A r 2 3 rder impugned is considered or the order in which circumstances it is passed is considered in its face value it would show that BALCO has obtained possessmn or encroached upon the Government land I e forest iand/forest ‘bade jhad jangai’ In the year 2007 08 Encroachment or drspossessron by Itself Is not offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC, unless same is committed with intent to ‘commit an offence onto a ' intimidate, insult-or annoy any person in possession of such property. As per the order impugned, if it is admitted that owners of BALCO have entered in possession of the Government land, even then it is difficult to t hold that they have entered in the Government land with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or cause annoyance to any authority of the State Government ln these circumstances taking cognizance and Initiating proceeding or pendency of criminal case against owners of ‘ BALCO would be groundless 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the petition and ‘ submits that the Court below has only Initiated proceeding, therefore the ' petitioner may tile Iesponse before the trial Court. a ' 5. Entering in land or property of any person, encroachment or dispossession of the person from any property by itself is not offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC or any provisions of the IPC for criminal trespass unless it is committed with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult ‘or annoy any person in possession of 'such property ln absence 'of aforesaid ingredients of the offence the order impugned initiating criminal case and pendency of criminal proceeding would only be groundless against the owners of BALCO 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 30-10- ‘ ‘2010 passed by the 2"“ Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba in ST , , No.16/2010 relating. to owners of BALCO for alleged commission; of offencepunishable under Section 447 of the IPC is hereby set aside. , Sdl- Q T.P. Sharma Judge i ' 'Soma ,i ,~,, ii: , o