Parkash Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Jhanji, J.—One Sher Singh was a big land owner. His land was declared surplus. Part of the land which was declared surplus was allotted by the competent authority to Dalip Singh, father of the petitioner who came in possession of the land. Subsequently, heirs of Sher Singh tried to dispossess Dalip Singh in order to restrain him from interfering in their possession. Dalip Singh filed civil suit No. 221 of 1994 in which heirs of Sher Singh have been restrained from dispossessing Dalip Singh illegally and forcibly from the land except in due course of law vide order dated 12th April, 1994 of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Gidderbaha.

The F.I.R. was lodged on 14th May, 1994 i.e. after one month of passing of the order. The following F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner who is none else but the son of Dalip singh :

"Today the Station House Officer, Police Station Lambi was when on patrolling duty present at the Bus Stand Hakoo Wala along with HC Iqbal Singh 298, LC Iqbal Singh 1699, HC Gurcharan Singh, PHG Baljinder Singh then it is informed that Parkash Singh son of Dalip Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, s/o Parkash Singh, Pala Singh s/o Parkash Singh, Jats r/o village Kakhanwali on the Rajwah leads to Kaddu Khera from village Kakhanwali were irrigating their fields illegally from the canal after fixing pipe unauthorisedly mixing the water with their water. If raids be made then the pipe can be obtained on the spot. Information is an offence on which case can be made u/s 430 379 IPC therefore PHG Baljinder Singh was sent to the Police Station for registering the case so the registration No. be known. Sd/- Sukhchain Singh SI Police Station Lambi 14.5.94. Bus Stand Hakoo Wala 2.45 A.M. Today the above-mentioned offence was registered at the police station a copy of FIR is being sent through PHG and SI is being sent on the spot."

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR on the ground that the same was got registered at the instance of Sher Singh against him with an ulterior motive for taking vengeance on the family of Dalip Singh and to meet personal grudge. The FIR is also sought to be quashed on the ground that reading of the FIR shows that the petitioner has not committed any offence under Sections 430 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, according to Section 31 of Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, unauthorised use of canal water is not an offence and at the most enhanced charges can be made against the petitioner.

In answer to the petition, no reply has been filed by the respondent. However, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the FIR cannot be quashed on these grounds.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed and the FIR has to be quashed on the short ground that unauthorised use of canal water cannot be said to be an offence, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Jawala Ram Vs. State of Pepsu, that unauthorised use of canal water is not an ''offence'' and imposition of enhanced water charges under Rules 32 and 33 of the Pepsu Sirhind Canal Rules is not a penalty for such an offence. It has further been held that enhanced water charges can be made that may be prescribed by the Rules. Even otherwise, I am satisfied that the present FIR has been registered at the instance of the heirs of Sher Singh against whom order of injunction is operative.

Consequently, the petition stands allowed and the FIR Annexure P-2 and all subsequent proceedings thereon shall stand quashed.