IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 49 of 2005. Decided on: April 06, 2009. __________________________________________________________ Amar Preet Singh Dhindsa. …..Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. and another. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. _______________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the petitioner, to quash the proceedings against him pending before the trial court, on the ground that no case is made out from the statements recorded by the police and the documents appended with the challan presented before the court below under Sections 341, 382, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Karam Singh, Chief Editor of the Tribune, Chandigarh had gone to Kasauli, to take the photographs of the on going illegal construction in Kasauli and surrounding areas. It is alleged that he had already taken photographs of the building of the accused Amar Preet Singh Dhindsa, as he was busy taking the other photographs of the said building from the road, one Sh. Sunil Verma came there and snatched his Cameras along with flash-light, lances and photo- reels and used the abusive language. Thereafter, the petitioner came there and asked him as to why he was taking the photographs of his building and indulged into the arguments with him. On the complaint of Karam Singh, FIR was registered under Section 341, 382, 506 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Police investigated the case and found the involvement of only the petitioner and Sunil Kumar aforesaid for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 382, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and presented the challan for their trial in the court. - 3 - The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if the statements of the prosecution witnesses are taken as true at its face-value, no case worth the name is made out against the petitioner under any of the sections. Contra, Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General has referred to the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and submitted that there is enough material on record for the trial of the petitioner. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully gone through the record. On going through the supplementary statement of the complainant Karam Singh, it transpires that he only attributed to the petitioner that he had come to the spot i.e. on the road and stopped him and asked as to why the photographs of his building were being taken by him, on this both of them started arguing with each other. The other witnesses Himmat Singh and S.P. Sharma, the Principal Correspondent of the Tribune also made the similar statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I see - 4 - no reason, why a person should not ask as to why their building was photographed, without any legal authority. Except the above averments, no other overt act is attributed to the petitioner, therefore, in my considered opinion, in the background of the aforesaid facts, prima- facie no offence is made out against the petitioner which requires him to put to trial, which would merely be an abuse the process of the court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings pending only against petitioner Amar Preet Singh Dhindsa in case No.171/2 of 1999/98 titled State Vs. Sushil Verma and another, are hereby quashed and set-aside. Record of the trial court be returned forthwith, with the direction to proceed against another accused, in accordance with law. April 06, 2009. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.