Punjab-Haryana High Court
Col. Baljit Singh Sandhu And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2025
AMIT KAUNDAL 2025.04.29 16:25 see 2025: PHHC:OS2727 & CRM-M-5550-2020 ee & IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-5550-2020 Date of Reserve : 01.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 Col. Baljit Singh Sandhu (Retd.) and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, AAG, Punjab. 3K 2k H.S. Grewal, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the complaint bearing COMA No.63 of 2017 dated 26.05.2017 (Annexure P-2) pending before the learned JMIC, Kharar filed under Sections 4, 5 and 19 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (for short, 'PLPA') along with provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927, Section 2 along with 3A of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 which is in violation of judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in WP(C) No.202 of 1995 on 12.12.1996. The petitioners have also sought quashing of the summoning order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure P-7) being illegal and barred by time in terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are the owners in possession of the land situated in village Karoran, District | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh AMIT KAUNDAL 2025.04.29 16:25 see 2025: PHHC:OS2727 & CRM-M-5550-2020 > Mohali. The respondent vide its complaint dated 12.07.2017 (Annexure P-2), had alleged that as per two damaged reports dated 18.11.2014 and 07.04.2016 (Annexures P-3 & P-4 respectively), a rasta had been illegally constructed by the petitioners on the land which is locked under Sections 4 & 5 of the PLPA. Learned counsel also contended that the trial Court has erred in summoning the petitioners as the offence is barred by limitation in terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C. and the continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process of law.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit of Divisional Forest Officer, SAS Nagar and has stated that by making rasta, the petitioners have encroached upon the forest land in complete disregard to law of the land and harming the fragile ecosystem of Shiwaliks that are abode to rich biodiversity and wildlife as well as a lifeline to replenishing the river ecosystem of the State. It is further pleaded that Section 468 Cr.P.C. would not be operative in this case since rasta in question is still in existence and the petitioners has been taking advantage of such illegal construction. The falling of the khair trees have still not being restored and the forest is still being illegally used by the petitioners. It is also submitted that the Forest Range Officer, SAS Nagar vide letter No.364 dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure R-4) had issued notice to the petitioners with regard to the violation done by them and they were asked to remove the violations to avoid legal consequences. It is also submitted that although the land might be under private ownership of the petitioners, but they could not change the integrity of the forest.
4. Learned State counsel also contended that the petitioners are the regular offenders of various Forest Act as petitioner No.1 had already been | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh AMIT KAUNDAL 2025.04.29 16:25 see 2025: PHHC:OS2727 & CRM-M-5550-2020 = convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar in Criminal Complaint Nos.8 and 9 of 19.02.2002, vide order dated 17.09.2009 (Annexures R-2 & R-
3), under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act and sentenced to undergone simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days in each of the complaints. Copies of the order dated 17.09.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar in Criminal Complaint Nos.8 and 9 of 19.02.2002 are appended at Annexures R-2 & R-3 respectively along with the reply.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on record.
6. The brief facts of the case are that the Divisional Forest Officer, SAS Nagar had moved a criminal complaint on 12.07.2017 (Annexure P-2) against the petitioners under Sections 4, 5 and 19 of PLPA along with provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927, Section 2 along with 3A of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and violation of judgment dated 12.12.1996 in WP(C) No.202 of 1995 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, alleging that they have illegally constructed a rasta measuring 2200 mt. long and 4 mt. wide by cutting hill area and uprooting ten khair trees and five misc. trees without the prior approval of the Forest Department. The trial Court, after examining the preliminary evidence as well as the documents annexed along with the complaint, had summoned the petitioners to face trial for the abovesaid offence, vide its order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure P-7).
7. The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners for setting aside the impugned complaint (Annexure P-2) and the summoning order (Annexure P-7) being barred by limitation in terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C. is | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh AMIT KAUNDAL 2025.04.29 16:25 2025: PHHC:OS272F & CRM-M-5550-2020 es not acceptable as the rasta and a continuous cause of action are still in existence.
8. The Full Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sarah Mathew versus The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director-Dr. K.M. Cherian and others, 2014(2) SCC 62, while determining the issue of period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., has held as under:-
"In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 488 of the CrP.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. We further hold that Bharat Kale which is followed in Japani Sahoo lays down the correct law. Krishna Pillai will have to be restricted to its own facts and it is not the authority for deciding the question as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the CrP.C."
9. In view of the undisputed facts and the position of law, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order summoning the petitioners for the aforementioned offence. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.
(H.S.GREWAL) JUDGE 24.04.2025 A.Kaundal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh