Crl. Misc. No. M-20054 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-20054 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.5.2010 Gurmukh Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.259 dated 10th October, 2008 (Annexure P-2), registered against the petitioner under Section 379 IPC at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar. The allegation against the petitioner is that while working as Panch in the year 2004, he cut 20 trees of different varieties from the Panchayat land of village Dhandowal. Market value of these trees was approximately Rs.2.00 lacs. On 1st July, 2004, Gram Panchayat passed a resolution for taking action against the petitioner. However, no action actually followed. A complaint was ultimately made by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer on 3rd October, 2008. On the basis Crl. Misc. No. M-20054 of 2009 2 of the said complaint, an FIR was registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that offence was admittedly committed in the year 2004 while the instant FIR has been lodged on 10th October, 2008. According to counsel, in view of the fact that offence under Section 379 IPC is punishable by maximum three years imprisonment, limitation as prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. would be attracted to the facts of the case. According to her, the FIR is liable to be quashed on this ground. Learned State counsel has, however, submitted that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands as charge has been framed against the petitioner by the trial court by a detailed order, wherein all the contentions with regard to limitation were dealt with. He has referred to order, Annexure R-4 annexed with the reply to contend that the question of limitation was dealt by the Judicial Magistrate and in exercise of powers under Section 473 Cr.P.C., the same was condoned. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that a complaint was made against the petitioner with regard to theft of certain trees (14 Tahlis, 4 Kikkars and 2 Toots) from Khasra No.65/4 and 66/1, belonging to the Panchayat. This complaint was made against the petitioner in the year 2004, pursuant to which a resolution was also passed by the Gram Panchayat for taking action against him. However, action was initiated only in the Crl. Misc. No. M-20054 of 2009 3 year 2008 when a formal complaint was lodged by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Shahkot. On the basis of the complaint, the instant FIR was registered. After completion of investigation, challan was presented by the investigating agency before the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar on 28th October, 2009. At the time of framing of charge, the petitioner raised the plea of limitation in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C. However, the trial court relying upon the provisions of Section 473 Cr.P.C., condoned the delay. Admittedly, order passed by the court below condoning the delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C. was never challenged by the petitioner. So much so, the said order has not been annexed with the petition. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that after registration of the FIR, investigation was not unduly delayed by the investigating agency and challan was presented less than a month thereafter. Though serious doubts can be raised about the necessity of invoking Section 473 Cr.P.C. for condonation of delay as the matter was reported to the police admittedly for the first time in the year 2008 and investigation was completed shortly thereafter, delay having been condoned by the court under Section 473 Cr.P.C., no case for quashing the FIR on this ground is made out. The order condoning delay was never challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal or revision. In view of this, no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Crl. Misc. No. M-20054 of 2009 4 However, in view of the fact that the occurrence pertains to the year 2004, the trial court is directed to complete the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 7.5.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No