IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-53344 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 17.11.2009 Gram Panchayat Khanpur ....Petitioner(s) vs. Gurnam Singh and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 14.5.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambala and thereafter an order dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ambala. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Gram Panchayat had agitated the matter by filing an application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. praying for removal of the encroachment on the Rasta Sar-e-aam (passage) which was being encroached upon by the respondent. Evidence was led by the parties before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambala. He contends that an agreement was entered into between Ram Kishan son of Jaimal Singh, Pritam Singh son of Tarlochan Singh and Norata Ram son of Bishna Ram, Village Khanpur, Tehsil and District Ambala. He contends that after coming into existence of the said agreement between the parties, the path was being used by all as Sundry and it had taken the shape of a public path. He, on this basis, submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below that it was not a public path, cannot be sustained. Crl.Misc.No.M-53344 of 2007 (O&M) -2- On the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that the existence of an agreement dated 12.1.1964 between the above-mentioned parties is not in dispute as it was a private agreement between the parties which has no public character attached thereto. Objections, if any, could be raised by any of the parties or their successors to the compromise and that the Gram Panchayat has no locus at all in pursuing the matter. That apart, he contends that no evidence had been led by the Gram Panchayat before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which would show that as a matter of fact the path was a public path or has been ever declared a public path by or under any notification or any Statute. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case as also the impugned orders. In the light of the fact that a specific finding has been recorded by the Authorities below that there is no evidence on record which would even suggest that the path was a public path, and thus the exercise of powers under Section 133 Cr.P.C. has rightly not been invoked by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, while passing order dated 14.5.2007. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ambala vide order dated 21.11.2007 has on consideration of all the submissions raised by the parties, passed a detailed and speaking order, keeping in view the law as well as the pleadings and the evidence so led by the parties. The conclusions drawn are fully justified which do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The present petition is dismissed accordingly. November 17, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE