Crl.Misc. No. M-16856 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-16856 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:August 20 , 2010 Umrao Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Basti Ram and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal,Advocate for the petitioner. ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of impugned orders dated 21.5.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Mahendergarh (Annexure P1) vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and the order dated 10.3.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Narnaul (Annexure P2) vide which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 2 of its order, read as under:- "The brief necessary facts for disposal of the present criminal appeal are that Municipal committee, Mahendergarh filed a Crl.Misc. No. M-16856 of 2009(O&M) 2 petition No. 15 PP Act of 2006 titled Municipal Committee Vs. Umrao Singh under Section 5/7 of the Public Premises Act (hereinafter in short referred as the Act) against Umrao Singh respondent herein appellant with averments that the appellant has constructed in tin shed and collected firewood etc. in the land of the Municipal Committee. He is in unauthorized possession of the land of the Municipal Committee. Therefore, unauthorized possession of the appellant be removed and possession of the land be delivered to the Municipal Committee.” After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. The controversy involved in this case was as to whether the site plan placed on record by the Municipal Committee was forged site plan qua Khasra No. 149. The demarcation report and site plan were submitted by the Local Commissioner and, on the basis of the same, the Municipal Committee had moved an application for removal of illegal possession of the respondents. The Collector dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 10.3.2009 (Annexure P2). The learned Additional Sessions Judge in paras 10,11 and 12 of Annexure P2 has held as under:- “10. Learned trial court has observed and held that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are not necessary in each and every case. The powers under sections 340 Cr.P.C. are extraordinary powers and should be sparingly exercised wherein the court comes to the conclusion that proceedings under Section 340 Crl.Misc. No. M-16856 of 2009(O&M) 3 Cr.P.C. are expedient in interest of justice. The proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. should not be initiated merely on asking of one party. In the case in hand, there is nothing to show that respondents forged the site plan in the court and used the same as genuine. Therefore, initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is neither expedient in interest of justice nor essential. Since even according to appellant himself, the alleged site plan was forged outside the court and later on produced in the court. So, provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. are not attracted and it is not expedient in the interest of justice to launch proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 11. It is also observed and held by the learned trial Magistrate that Municipal Committee filed a site plan with the main petition prepared by Basti Ram Junior Engineer and according to the appellant Khasra No. 149 has been wrongly shown in the site plan. The respondents instead of preparing a fresh site-plan attached the site-plan prepared by the Local Commissioner after highlighting and showing encroachment with red ink. There is no ill-will or malafide on the part of Basti Ram Junior Engineer and Bijender Singh President of the Municipal Committee. They filed the site-plan just to highlight the encroachment. The Municipal Committee filed the main petition under the Act for removal of unauthorized encroachment after obtaining copy of Local Commissioner report dated 14.1.1999 and attached site plan. The appellant has filed the petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to pressurize the respondent to get favourable order in his favour. Crl.Misc. No. M-16856 of 2009(O&M) 4 There is no necessity to launch proceedings to exercise powers under Section 349 Cr.P.C. 12. The order under challenge is reasoned, speaking, as per record, facts and law on the point. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any error, illegality and infirmity in the order under challenge which requires interference. Since, the order under challenge is reasoned, speaking as per record and law as well as the powers under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are to used sparingly when prima facie it appears that some forgery is committed inside the court and it is expedient in the interest of justice to launch proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. only than powers under Section 340 Cr.P.C should be exercised. But learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that respondents forged any document insdie the court and used the same as genuine. The case of respondents is that after obtaining copy of the site plan they showed unauthorized encroachment with red ink to highlight the unauthorized encroachment. The stand taken by respondents is plausible and trust worthy. The appellant has failed to show that respondents intentionally just to harm and harass him and create false evidence forged the site plan inside the court. Whereas respondents succeeded in showing that a certified copy of the site plan was obtained. Thereafter, the Municipal Committee showed the unauthorized encroachment with red ink and filed with the main petition. The respondents did not forge the site plan during court proceedings in the court. Hence, the case does not fall under the provisions of Section 340 Crl.Misc. No. M-16856 of 2009(O&M) 5 Cr.P.C. and the trial Magistrate rightly refused to exercise powers under Section 340 Cr.P.C.” Both the Courts below, after appreciating the material on record, have held that the site plan had not been forged during the Courts proceedings and, hence, the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. were not attracted in this case. The reasons given by the Courts below are sound reasons and call for no interference. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 20, 2010 arya