Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Surendra Kumar Golcha vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 April, 2014
Â/ 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 2757 of 2012)
SURENDRA KUMAR GOLCHA ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The petitioner, aggrieved by his prosecution under section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), has preferred this special leave petition.
Short facts giving rise to the present petition are that on the basis of a report given by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board alleging encroachment by Golcha group, a case under Section 203 of the Act was registered. Police after usual investigation did not find sufficient material to file a chargesheet against the petitioner. The informant-Executive Officer filed a Protest Petition. The report submitted by the Investigating Officer was placed for consideration before the learned 2 Magistrate, who differed with his conclusion, took cognizance of the offence under Section 203 of the Act and directed issuance of process against the petitioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, preferred revision, which was ultimately dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the aforesaid orders. The High Court by the impugned order has rejected the said petition. It is in these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has preferred this special leave petition.
Leave granted.
Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, raises a very short point. He submits that according to the First Information Report, it is Golcha group who is alleged to have made encroachment and during the course of investigation, nothing had surfaced to show that this appellant was in any way responsible for the encroachment alleged. Mr. Lalit further points out that "Golcha group"
is not a juristic person. In that view of the 3 matter, according to Mr. Lalit, prosecution of the appellant is an abuse of the process of the Court.
On the other hand, Ms. Shobha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2- Municipal Board, however, submits that Golcha group is a known group and, therefore, the prosecution of the appellant is well justified.
We have appreciated the rival submissions and we find substance in the submissions of Mr. Lalit. Allegation of encroachment is against the Golcha group. Golcha group is not a juristic person. No material has come during the course of investigation to connect the appellant before us with the crime. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution of the appellant shall be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Before concluding, we make it clear that the observations made by us in the present order shall be confined to the case in hand and shall have no bearing on the other accused. We further make it clear that respondents shall be at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in 4 law for removal of the encroachment, if any. In the result, we allow this appeal, quash the appellant’s prosecution under Section 203 of the Act pending before the trial court.
..........................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) ..........................J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) New Delhi;
April 29, 2014
5
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.8 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2757/2012 (From the judgement and order dated 19/12/2011 in CRMP No.691/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR) SURENDRA KUMAR GOLCHA Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for stay, exemption from filing O.T., permission to file additional documents and office report) Date: 29/04/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE For Petitioner(s) Mr. U.U. Lalit, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Swadeep Vohra, Adv.
Mr. Manasi Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
Mr. E.C. Agrawala,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Shobha,Adv.
RR-2 Mr. Prasanna Mohan, Adv. RR-1 Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(S.K. Rakheja) (Indu Satija)
Court Master Assistant Registrar
(Signed order is placed on the file) 6