Crl.Misc.No.M-28642 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-28642 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:September 02, 2011 Gurmeet Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Ms.Seema Arora, Advocate for Mr.C.M.Munjal,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Brar,Assistant Advocate General,Punjab. --- Sabina, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 41 dated 2.4.2010 (Annexure P1) under Sections 379/430 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') registered at Police Station Lambi District Mukstar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had, allegedly, diverted canal water through their fields in an unauthorized manner and, thus, allegedly, committed Crl.Misc.No.M-28642 of 2010(O&M) 2 theft of canal water. Learned counsel has further submitted that the said act does not constitute a criminal offence. In support of her arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Parkash Singh vs. State of Punjab 1995(1) PLR 613. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under:- “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed and the FIR has to be quashed on the short ground that unauthorized use of canal water cannot be said to be an offence. It has been held by the Supreme Court in 1962 AIR (SC) 1246 that unauthorized use of canal water is not an `ofence' and imposition of enhanced water charges under Rules 32 and 33 of the Pepsu Sirhind Canal Rules is not a penalty for such an offence. It has further been held that enhanced water charges can be made that may be prescribed by the Rules. Even otherwise, I am satisfied that the present FIR has been registered at the instance of the heirs of Sher Singh against whom order of injunction is operative.” Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioners were guilty of commission of offence for theft of water. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The FIR in question has been registered against the petitioners on the allegations that they had unauthorizedly irrigated their land with the help of rubber pipes from the bank of the canal. Crl.Misc.No.M-28642 of 2010(O&M) 3 The case of the petitioners is fully covered by the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh's case (supra) . Vide the said judgment, it was held that unauthorized use of canal water cannot be said to be an offence. The State could have sought enhanced water charges from the petitioners on account of unauthorized use of canal water. However, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No.41 dated 2.4.2010 (Annexure P1) under Sections 379/430 IPC registered at Police Station Lambi District Muktsar and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 02, 2011 arya