AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—This is a petition u/s 484 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint case No. 13 of 1983 u/s 3 of the Railways Property (unlawful possession) Act, 1966 (for short, the 1966 Act) registered at R.P.F. Post, Pathankot.
Briefly the facts of the case are that on 9.7.1980 an informer made a report before the S.I./S.H.O., G.R.P., Pathankot that petitioner had constructed his house at Abrol Nagar, Pathankot and for the said construction he had misappropriated 50 bags of cement from the store of the Railways. 50 bags were found in the house, which was being constructed by the petitioner but the same could not be connected with the Railways property. Consequently, the FIR was quashed on the ground that G.R.P. cannot investigate the offence as it was the Railway property and it was only the Railway Protection Force which could deal with the matter u/s 3 of the 1966 Act.
After the quashing of the FIR which was registered in 1980, a fresh complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur on 26.10.1983. The petitioner was duly summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner put in his appearance and pre-charge evidence was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. Two witnesses were also examined.
Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that more than 20 years have elapsed since the alleged commission of offence and only the pre-charge evidence has been recorded. He prays that the complaint be quashed on the ground of delay itself.
Mr. Deepak Thaper, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 2 states that two witnesses have already been examined and the case would be completed expeditiously.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that although complaint was lodged on 26.10.1983, but till date no evidence has been completed by the respondents. In view of this matter, there has been an inordinate delay of more than 20 years. Moreover, the alleged offence is of misappropriation of 50 bags of cement, which is very trivial in nature. Even the identity of the cement alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner has not been established and the same has not been connected with the property of the Railways.
In view of the above, I quash the complaint No. 13 of 1983 registered u/s 3 of the 1966 Act pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. The petition is allowed.