IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-10587 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 28, 2011 Karambir and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Krishan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent – State. Mr.Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `CrPC') quashing of First Information Report (for short `FIR') No.175 (Annexure P1) dated December 20th, 2010, registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') in Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar, is sought. 2. A letter bearing No.2031 dated July 23rd, 2010 was sent by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Chachhrauli (for short `BDPO') to the Station House Officer, Bilaspur, to register the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners, stating that vide resolution dated June 20th, 2010, passed by Gram Pamchayat, Lalhari Kalan, District Yamuna Nagar, the petitioners have cut trees from the Panchayat land comprised in Khasra No.10/7/1. 3. The Police reached the spot and recovered the 29 trees lying in the field of the petitioners. Karambir – petitioner No.1 filed an application/ affidavit dated July 14th, 2010 (Annexure P3) that he had cut 20/25 quintal of wood from his own land comprised in Khasra No.7/24/2 situated in village Jogiwara. He did not cut any tree from the Panchayat Land and on demarcation, if it is found that he had cut any tree from the Panchayat Land, he is ready to pay the compensation. On his application, the BDPO sent another letter No.2090 dated July 14th, 2010 (Annexure P4) to the Station House Officer directing him not to take action in view of the affidavit (Annexure P3), until the demarcation report is submitted. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Bilaspur vide order dated October 11th,2010 directed the revenue officials, vis; Kanungo and Patwari, to visit the site and submit the demarcation report of Khasra No.7/24/2. Revenue officials reached the spot and found that popular trees were standing on the Eastern and Northern boundaries of Khasra No.7/24/2, owned and possessed by the petitioners and eight trees of `Jamova' and `Shisham' standing on the Southern boundary were cut four months ago. Not only that, site plan (Annexure R1), copy of which has now been placed on the record by learned State counsel, prepared by Dharampal, Assistant Sub Inspector, shows that alleged stolen trees were recovered from the land owned by the petitioners. 4. On being questioned, the State Counsel, who is assisted by Mr.Narender Kumar, BDPO and Mr. Hemant Kumar, Panchayat Secretary, Village Lalhari Kalan, accepts that there is no evidence to show that any tree was cut from Khasra No.10/7/1, except the oral statements of the witnesses. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the demarcation report dated October 12th, 2010 (Annexure P5) to say that trees were standing on the land of the petitioners, that is, Khasra No.7/24/2 and not in Khasra No.10/7/1. 6. In view of this, it is unhesitatingly held that no tree, whatsoever, was cut or stolen by the petitioners standing in the land of Khasra No.10/7/1, owned by the Gram Panchayat, Lalhari Kalan, rather the trees which were found cut on the spot were standing in the field of the petitioners. 7. Hence, the petition is accepted, FIR No.175 (Annexure P1) dated December 20th, 2010, registered under Section 379 IPC in Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. November 28, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) gian JUDGE