IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.121 of 2008. Decided on: 15th March, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Surinder Singh ….Petitioner. Versus State of HP and another. ……..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.1 : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No.2 : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Charu Gupta and Mr. Janinder Mittal, Advocates. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. The petitioner has sought for quashing of proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.3, Shimla, under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code based upon FIR No.172 of 1990, dated 23rd April, 1990, registered in Police Station, Sadar, Shimla and also for quashing of other FIR Nos.140 of 1990, 146 of 1990 and 69 of 1993 for allegedly restraining respondent No.2 from the use of path. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner herein and respondent No.2 own the house properties adjacent to each other. Respondent No.2 has been Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - claiming the right of passage through khasra No.602. It is alleged that when respondent No.2 was using the said passage he was restrained by the petitioner. FIR No.172 of 1990 was lodged in Police Station, Sadar Shimla on 23rd April, 1990, whereas the Challan under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code in the said Court was presented on 31st March, 1993, i.e., after about more than two years from the commission of the alleged offence. The trial Court put the acquisition and when the case was going on, further proceedings were stayed vide order of this Court on 17th March, 1997 passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No.458 of 1993 by the High Court, till final disposal of the civil suit, which was in respect of the same passage. So far as other three FIRs are concerned, these were also stayed vide order dated 17th March, 1997 passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No.821 of 1993 and Cr.M.P.(M) No.1042 of 1993, till the disposal of the civil suit. Civil Suit No.353/1 of 1996/1990 was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.3, Shimla, vide judgment and decree passed on 19th February, 2008 in favour of the petitioner restraining respondent No.2 from interfering in his possession over the land comprised of khasra Nos.602, 602/1 and 602/2 and claiming any forcible right of passage through stairs over the property, which is under challenge in appeal, as stated by the learned Counsel for respondent No.2. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and also the fact that the alleged incident had taken place on 23rd April, 1990 and the Challan was presented in the Court on 31st March, 1993, the Court could not have taken the cognizance of the alleged offence - 3 - after a period of one year, as having barred by limitation under Section 468 (2) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus further proceedings in Challan No.172/2 of 2002/1993 State versus Surinder Singh, emanating from FIR No.172 of 1990 and also the FIR are hereby quashed, the petitioner stands acquitted. So far as the other FIRs are concerned, although they are stated to have been filed being untraced as stated in the affidavit filed by respondent No.1, but otherwise also in view of the decree passed by the civil Court these do not survive and are also deemed to have been cancelled The petition stands allowed and disposed of. March 15, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)