Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/18 vs The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And 3 Ors on 8 January, 2026
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010137442021
2026:GAU-AS:513
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./448/2021
JAMBEY TSERING
S/O. LT. LAMA DORJEE, R/O. GYANGKHAR VILLAGE, P.O. LEMBERDUNG
AND P.S. TAWANG, TAWANG DISTRICT, ARUNACHAL PRADESH.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND 3 ORS.
REP. THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL
PRADESH.
2:THE DLRSO CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TAWANG
GOVT. OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH.
3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
TAWANG DISTRICT
ARUNACHAL PRADESH.
4:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
POLICE STATION TAWANG
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T T TARA, MR. D MOZUMDER,MR. P BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, A P, MR A CHOWDHURY (R-2),MS. B CHOWDHURY (R-
2),MR. S DUTTA (R-2),GA, AP Page No.# 2/18 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Biswas, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A. Chandran, PP, Arunachal Pradesh : Ms. B. Chowdhury, Advocate (for respondent No. 2) Date of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date of Judgment : 08.01.2026 JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Chandran, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as Ms. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Shri Jambey Tsering praying for quashing of the FIR dated 14.08.2019 filed by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of which Tawang P.S. Case No. 14/2019 was registered under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are that the respondent No. 2, i.e., the DLRSO-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Tawang along with the staff of the Land Branch of Deputy Commissioner's office carried out an inspection in Tawang Township area and found that the present Page No.# 3/18 petitioner had constructed a structure near Circuit House Tawang without any land allotment order. Accordingly, the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum- Estate Officer, Tawang served a notice dated 08.10.2015 to the petitioner under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 directing the petitioner to dismantle the structure and vacate the land over which the unauthorized structure was constructed. Ultimately, on 18.06.2019 i.e., after a gap of about four years from the date of issuance of the first notice, the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Tawang passed a final order directing the petitioner to dismantle and remove the structure within seven days of the date of the said order failing which the procedure prescribed in Section 4(b)(i)(ii) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 would be taken recourse to.
4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid final order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Tawang, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 16.07.2019, before the Deputy Commissioner Tawang, under Section 12 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003. However, it is alleged that the officials of the Deputy Commissioner's office, Tawang refused to receive the said application of appeal filed by the petitioner.
5. Itis also stated in the instant petition filed by the present petitioner that on 17.08.2012, the petitioner had applied for land allotment to the District Authority, Tawang in respect of the land which was occupied by him since couple of years ago.
6. It is also stated that after filing the application for allotment of land, the petitioner invested huge sum of money and developed the land without any Page No.# 4/18 objection from any quarter and subsequently constructed an RCC building on the said plot of land.
7. Thereafter, on 14.08.2019, the respondent No. 2 i.e., the DLRSO-cum- Deputy Commissioner, Tawang had filed an FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Tawang with a copy of the same to the Officer-in-charge of Tawang Police Station. It is alleged in the FIR that the present petitioner had constructed a building near the circuit house unauthorizedly and illegally without any land allotment order whatsoever. It was further alleged that even after issuance of several notices by District Estate Officer, Tawang, the petitioner carried out the construction of works. On the basis of the said FIR, Tawang Police Station Case No. 14/2019 was registered and investigation was initiated.
8. The petitioner had filed the instant criminal petition challenging the registration of FIR and has prayed for quashing of the said FIR.
9. The said criminal petition was initially filed before the Itanagar Bench of Gauhati High Court and was registered as Criminal Petition No. 17(AP)/2020. However, on 16.03.2020, on the day of motion itself, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the criminal petition without issuing notice to the respondents and the FIR dated 14.08.2019 was quashed.
10. The respondent No. 2, on being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India which was registered as SLP (Crl.) No. 3356/2020. By order dated 30.07.2021, the Apex Court disposed of the aforesaid SLP by setting aside the order dated 16.03.2020 passed in Criminal Petition No. 17(AP)/2020 and remanded back the matter to this Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The respondent No. 2, on Page No.# 5/18 being apprehensive of the fact that considering his position at that point of time (he was the Public Prosecutor of Arunachal Pradesh), filed an application for transfer of the Criminal Petition No. 17(AP)/2020 from Itanagar Bench to the Principal Seat of this Court and same was allowed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court on 12.08.2021.
11. Thereafter, the instant criminal petition was transferred to the Principal Seat and was renumbered as Criminal Petition No. 448/2021. It is pertinent to mention herein that by order dated 12.08.2021, when the matter was listed before Itanagar Bench, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while calling the case diary of the case, stayed the further investigation of Tawang P.S. Case No. 14/2019. However, by that timethe investigation had already completed and the Investigating Officer had filed the charge-sheet bearing Charge-sheet No. 2/2020 under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in the instant case, the FIR has been lodged against the respondent No. 2 due to personal grudge and to wreck vengeance with ulterior motive to harass the petitioner in a false and fabricated case as the petitioner being an advocate have represented the adverse parties against the respondent No. 2 and his family members in two cases, namely, Complaint Case No. 6/2014 ( Sri Lobsang Dorjee and Ors. Vs. Lama Ngawang Norbu and Ors .) and the Title Suit No. 10/2018 ( Jambey Sangey and Ors. Vs. Sangey Phuntso and Ors.).
13. He submits that though during the pendency of the instant criminal Page No.# 6/18 petition, charge-sheet has been laid against the present petitioner, however, an FIR may be quashed even when charge-sheet has been laid in a case. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited following rulings:-
(i) "Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat", reported in "(2011) 7 SCC 59"
(ii) "Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)" reported in"(2019) 11 SCC 706"
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the taking of cognizance for an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Court is barred under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless the procedure prescribed therein has been followed. He submits that there is an absolute bar for any Court taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code except on complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under Section 2 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a complaint means any allegations made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view of taking action under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that some person whether known or unknown has committed an offence but does not include police report. He submits that thus a complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has to be addressed to a Magistrate in the manner as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, he submits that in the instant case, the respondent No. 2 instead of filing a complaint before the Magistrate has filed an FIR to the Superintendent of Police with a copy of the same to the Officer-in-charge of Tawang Police Station, who in spite Page No.# 7/18 of specific bar under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had registered the Tawang P.S. Case No. 14/2019 under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003.
16. He submits that since the respondent No. 2 has lodged an FIR in respect of an offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code which is contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the entire police station case registered on the basis of the said complaint is rendered void ab initio and is liable to be quashed. He submits that the submission of charge-sheet No. 2/2020 on the basis of an investigation ensued after filing of such an FIR is also illegal and liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited following rulings:-
(i) "Saloni Arora Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)" reported in "(2017) 3 SCC 286"
(ii) "Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab" reported in "AIR 1962 SC 1206"
(iii) "CBI Vs. M. Sivamani" reported in "(2017) 14 SCC 855"
(iv) "M.S. Ahlawat Vs. State of Haryana" reported in "(2000) 1 SCC 278"
(v) "C. Muniappan Vs. State of T.N." reported in "(2010) 9 SCC 567"
(vi) "State of Punjab Vs. Raj Singh" reported in "(1998) 2 SCC 391"
(vii) "Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar", reported in "(2019) 3 SCC 318"
17. He submits that since the main FIR was filed and registered in violation of the clear statutory provisions under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the charge-sheet filed in the said case is liable to be quashed Page No.# 8/18 as allowing the continuation of the proceedings which has been initiated on the basis of FIR lodged which is contrary to the statutory provisions would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following rulings:-
(i) "Jayant Vs. State of M.P." reported in "(2021) 2 SCC 670"
(ii) "Devarapally Lakshminarayana Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy reported in "(1976) 3 SCC 252"
(iii) "Sachida Nand Singh Vs. State of Bihar" reported in "(1998) 2 SCC 493"
(iv) "A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak" reported in "(1984) 2 SCC 500"
(v) "Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat", reported in "(2011) 7 SCC 59"
(vi) "Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)" reported in "(2019) 11 SCC 706"
(vii) "State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy" reported in "(1977) 2 SCC 699"
(viii) "State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in "1992 Supp (1) SCC 33"
(ix) "King Vs. Darbarilal Shaw" reported in "1949 SCC OnLine Cal 166"
(x) "D.N. Ramaiah Vs. D.R. Aswathanarayanasetty" reported in "1971 SCC OnLine Kar 255"
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in respect of an offence under Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Page No.# 9/18 Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 is concerned, there is no provision in the said Act for lodging of an FIR. He submits that under Section 15 of the said Act, the Estate Officer has to file the complaint in respect of offence under the aforesaid provisions.
19. He submits that Section 14 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 empowers the Estate Officer to imposed penalty against the unauthorized occupants of public premises. He further submits that the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 is complete code in itself and it prescribes the consequences of an unauthorized occupation in the public premises. He submits that the Estate Officer is empowered to issue order for eviction of such unauthorized occupants. Moreover, it has also power to remove or demolish any unauthorized constructions or structure erected over public premises. He submits that however said power has not been exercised by the Estate Officer rather to harass the present petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has illegally filed an FIR against him to make him suffer to undergo the rigors of a criminal trial. He submits that since the FIR has been lodged by the respondent No. 2 only with an ulterior motive for taking vengeance on the petitioner contrary to the statutory provision, same is liable to be quashed and the criminal proceeding emanating therefrom is also liable to be quashed and set aside.
20. On the other hand, Mr. A. Chandran, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 does not provide for any legal bar in filing of an FIR in respect of an offence allegedly committed under Section 14 of the said Act. He submits thatthough there may be a legal bar in Page No.# 10/18 respect of offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, however, there is no such bar as regards to an offence under Section 14 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003. Hence, he submits thatthe case of the petitioner does not have any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
21. Ms. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that several notices under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 were served on the petitioner as he was found to be unauthorized occupation of public premises near the circuit house, Tawang. However, the petitioner did not pay any heed to the said notices and erected an RCC structure over the said public premises unauthorizedly without there being any allotment of land in his name. She submits that the petitioner had illegally trespassed and occupied a plot of government land near circuit house, Tawang. She further submits that though the petitioner has made representations for allotment of land to him before the Deputy Commissioner, Tawang, however, no such land was allotted and merely on the strength of representation filed by the petitioner, he does not get any right over the government land.
22. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has further submitted that Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 is a penal provision and prescribes for punishment of simple imprisonment which may extend to six month or a fine of Rs.2,000/- or with both. She further submits that Section 15 of the aforesaid Act provides that the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be applicable to an offence under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act. She also submits that by virtue of Page No.# 11/18 the said provision, the offence under Section 15 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 has been made a cognizable offence. She also submits that there is no bar in filing of an FIR for initiation of a criminal proceeding under Section 14 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003. She also submits that the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 on their face value shows that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003. Hence, she submits that the prayer for quashing of the FIR and the charge-sheet may not be allowed.
23. She also submits that the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection, that too, in rarest of the rare cases. In support of her submission, she has cited the ruling of Apex Court in the case of " State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajanlal and Ors." reported in "1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335".
24. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also submitted that the fact that the impugned FIR was filed by the respondent No. 2 after a gap of four years from the date of first notice issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003, in itself, may not be a reason for quashing of the FIR. She submits that as the offence under Section 14(i) of the aforesaid Act is a continuing offence, the FIR cannot be quashed solely on the ground that it was filed after four years of the date of issuance of first notice under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 to the petitioner. In support of her submission, she has cited a ruling of the Apex Court Page No.# 12/18 in the case of "Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty" reported in "(2007) 7 SCC 394".
25. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that as the FIR lodged in this case clearly discloses an offence under Section 14 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003, this is not a fit case for quashing the FIR or the criminal proceeding emanating therefrom, in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.She, therefore, submits that the instant criminal petition filed by the present petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
26. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record including the scanned copy of the records of the Trial Court. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions.
27. It appears from record that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he has trespassed into the government land near circuit house, Tawang and has constructed RCC structure thereon without there being any land allotment order in his favour. In this respect, the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Tawang had served a notice under Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 to him on 08.10.2015. It also appears that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Tawang had, on 18.06.2019, passed an order under the provisions of Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 for dismantling and removing of the illegal construction by the present petitioner.
Page No.# 13/18
28. It also appears that the FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2 on 14.08.2019 before the Superintendent of Police, Tawang was registered under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet bearing No. 2/2020 has been laid against the present petitioner under the aforesaid provision, on the basis of which G.R. Case No. 37/2019 has been registered before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tawang.
29. The question to be considered in this case is that as to whether a criminal proceeding under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 can be initiated by filing an FIR or is it necessary to file a written complaint by any person specified in the statute.
30. As regards offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal code is concerned, the unambiguous statutory provisions contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down a bar in taking cognizance of any offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code in any other manner than what has been prescribed in the Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. For the sake of convenience, the relevant provision of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is quoted herein below:-
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.-(1)No Court shall take cognizance -
(a)(i)of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii)of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or Page No.# 14/18
(iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;..............."
31. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it appears that a prosecution for an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code can be initiated only on a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or otherpublic servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. The procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory for initiation of a criminal proceeding under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Any violation of the said mandatory provision would render the said proceeding void ab initio. This view has been upheld by the Apex Court in the case of " Daulat Ram Vs. State of Punjab" (supra) and other cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, this Court does not have any hesitation to come to the finding that as regards offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code which is alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner, the FIR filed by the respondent No. 2 as well as charge-sheet submitted to the extent it relates to offence under Section 188 is void ab initio and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, same is hereby done.
32. The impugned FIR dated 18.08.2019 and the charge-sheet bearing charge-sheet No. 2/2020 so far as it relates to offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside.
33. As regards offence under Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 is concerned, it appears that the said Act which deals with the issue of Page No.# 15/18 unauthorized occupation over any public premises provides for two kinds of consequences. Firstly, the civil consequence, i.e., in the event after giving notice under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act and after considering any evidence produce by such person and after personal hearing, if the Estate Officer is satisfied that any public premises is under unauthorized occupation of any person, such an Estate Officer may make an order for eviction directing that the public premises shall be vacated. Such an order may be passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003. In the event of any failure or refusal to comply with an order issued under Section 5(i) of the aforesaid Act, the Estate Officer may even use such force as may be necessary for the said purpose. The Estate Officer has also been empowered under Section 7 of the said Act to pass order for demolition of any unauthorized building, structure or fixture or any public premises. The Act also provides for provisions for appeal under Section 12 of the said Act against order of the Estate Officer passed under Section 5, 7, 8 and 10 of the said Act. These provisions and consequences are of civil in nature.
34. However, under Section 14 of the said Act, the penal consequence of an unauthorized occupation over any public premises are provided for. Section 14 and Section 15 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 are reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience:-
"14. (i) If any person unlawfully occupies any public premises, he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand Page No.# 16/18 rupees, or with both:
Provided that a person who, having been lawfully in occupation of any public premises by virtue of any authority (whether by way of grant, allotment or by any other mode whatsoever) continues to be in occupation of such premises after such authority as ceased to be valid, shall not be guilty of such offence.
(ii) If any person who has been evicted from any public premises under this Act again occupies the premises without authority for such occupation, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.
(iii) Any Magistrate convicting a person under sub-section (ii) may make an order for evicting that person summarily and he shall be liable to such eviction without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him under this Act.
15. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to an offence under section 14 as if it were a cognizable offence
(i) for the purposes of investigation of such offence, and
(ii) for the purposes of matters, other than (1) matters referred to in section 42 of that Code, and (2) arrest of a person except on the complaint of, or upon information received from a Gazetted Officer as may be appointed by the state government in the case of an offence in relation to the public premises specified in sub-section (iv) of Section 2 of the Act".
Page No.# 17/18
35. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it becomes clear that the offence under Section 14(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 is a cognizable offence. It also appears that the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply to an offence under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act except for the matters indicated in Section 15(ii) of the said Act. It also appears that for effecting the arrest of a person, who is accused of an offence under Section 14 of the said Act, a complaint or an information received from Gazetted Officer appointed by the State Government is an essential requisite. Nowhere, in the aforesaid Act, there is any bar for filing of an FIR in respect of an offence under Section 14 of the Act, rather Section 15(ii) of the Act indicates that both i.e., a complaint as well as an information may be given by the gazette officer in case of an offence in relation to public premises specified in Section 2(iv) of the aforesaid Act.
36. Thus, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no FIR may be filed for an offence under Section 14 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003 does not appear to be appealing to logic, rather the statute clearly indicates, as stated in the foregoing paragraph, that both complaint and information (which would certainly mean a first information in respect of the alleged offence) may be filed by the Gazetted Officer, indicated in Section 15(ii) of the said Act, in respect of an offence committed under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act.
37. Thus, this Court is of considered opinion that though there is legal embargo in taking cognizance of offence under Section 188 of the Indian Page No.# 18/18 Penal Code as provided under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, there is no such legal embargo in respect of an offence under Section 14 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003.
38. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs and reasons stated therein, this criminal petition is partly allowed.
39. Accordingly, the FIR dated 14.08.2019 as well as the charge-sheet No. 02/2020 to the extent it relates to offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and quashed. However, as regards the offence under Section 14 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 2003alleged against the present petitioner no such interference is made and the criminal case registered on the basis of aforesaid charge-sheet, i.e., G.R. Case No. 37/2019, to the extent it relates to offence under Section 14 of the Act would continue in its normal course and would be taken to its logical conclusion by the Trial Court.
40. With the above observation, this criminal petition is disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant