Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/298/2011 on 31 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS.PURVA SAREEN, MM01,
SOUTH, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
FIR No.298/11
PS FP Beri
U/s 188 IPC
State v. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc
ORDER
Accused persons have moved an application u/s 258 CrPC for stopping of proceedings and after hearing the arguments of the counsel, I am giving the following observations: The brief facts are as follows :
1. The accused has been charge sheeted u/s 188 IPC for carrying unauthorized construction in violation of restraining order passed by SDM, Huaz Khas.
2. As per section 188 IPC: "whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such directions, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or State v. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc Page 1 FIR No.298/11, PS FP Beri injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with ......
"and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray shall be ....".
3. The basic ingredients of the section 188 IPC are as follows:
(i) There should be an order by public servant.
(ii) There should be disobedience of such order.
(iii) Such disobedience must cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed.
4. It has been argued by l.d counsel for accused that first of all there must be an order promulgated by public servant and there is no order on record showing such promulgation. It has been further argued that proper compliance of section 195 CrPC has not been done. It has also been argued that no notice had been issued to the accused before registering the case against him. Further, there is no record to show that such land was an agricultural land where colonization has allegedly taken place. No Gazatte Notification has been placed on record to show that such land was State v. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc Page 2 FIR No.298/11, PS FP Beri an agricultural land. Further, the prosecution has also failed to prove that any annoyance or obstruction was done to anyone by such act of the accused.
5. On the other hand ld. APP for the state has argued that ignorance of law is no excuse. Hence, accused cannot plead that colonization was not prohibited. Further, Ld. APP for the state has argued that there has been compliance of section 195 CrPC which has been done in a routine manner and notice was also served upon the accused upon which he made appearance in the court.
6. I have heard the arguments of both the parties. Ld. Counsel for accused has prayed for acquittal of the accused u/s 258 CrPC by stopping proceedings as there is not enough material on record to proceed against the accused.
7. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the documents on record the following observations are being given :
(i) There was restraint order which was not acted upon and notice was served upon the accused. However, the address upon notice was State v. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc Page 3 FIR No.298/11, PS FP Beri incomplete.
(ii) It has been further observed that IO has not placed any document on record to connect the property with the accused.
(iii) There is no Gezzate notification to show that the said land was an agricultural land. The orders which has been promulgated and disobeyed have not been placed on record.
(iv) No proof of any obstruction or injury to anyone has been shown by prosecution.
8. In such circumstances, no ingredients of the section 188 IPC have been fulfilled. Hence, I do not feel that the present case is fit to proceed further. As the charge has already been framed, the accused at this stage stands acquitted for the alleged offence.
9. Bail bond stands cancelled. Surety stands discharged. Document if any, be released to rightful owner as per law.
10.File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (PURVA SAREEN)
st
on 31 March 2014 MM01/SOUTH/SAKET COURT
NEW DELHI
State v. Jagdish @ Jaggi etc Page 4
FIR No.298/11, PS FP Beri