Takot Taggu Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC040007592024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Petn./87/2024

¶5

Takot Taggu Son of Late T Taggu, Yongong village, PO and PS Rumgong, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently resides at ESS Sector, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh

¶6

VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented though the PP of AP 2:Talo Potom Age: 0 Occupation : then Deputy Commissioner Itanagar Capital Region and presently serving as Deputy Commissioner Upper Subansiri District Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Daporij

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Kirmani Lollen,Y Mugli,Terji Kamchi,Khoda Apa,Gamken Bam

¶8

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶9

-BEFORE

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶11

05.05.2025 ORDER(ORAL)

¶12

Page No.# 2/6

¶13

Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. PP for the State.

¶14

2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the Charge-Sheet No. 329/2023 dated 02.12.2023 assailing the proceeding of G. R. Case No. 664/2023 arising out of Itanagar P.S. Case/ FIR No. 190/2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia.

¶15

3. The fundamental ground urged by Mr. Tara, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the same subject matter, a proceeding under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003, an appeal is pending and therefore, the FIR in question could not have been registered by the authorities at the behest of the Estate Officer, who is the respondent No. 2 in this case.

¶16

4. According to Mr. Tara, the subject matter of both the FIR and the proceeding under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003 are same. It is his further contention that even if, the investigating authority has candidly admitted in the Charge-Sheet filed that no case under Section 3 of the PDPP Act is made out and therefore, in the aforesaid background, a case under Section 447 of the IPC could not have been stated to be made out in the charge-sheet and in the given facts of the present case.

¶17

4. On the other hand, the learned Addl. PP argues that only for the reason that the civil matter is pending, it cannot be said that in all circumstances, a criminal proceeding shall not be maintainable and

¶18

Page No.# 3/6

¶19

therefore, in view of the Charge-Sheet filed, this Court in exercise of its inherent power may not entertain the present application.

¶20

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

6. To appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the facts of the present litigation is required to be recorded, which are as under:-

¶22

I. The petitioner claims ownership of the subject plot of land in terms of an allotment letter issued on 03.07.2019 for an area of land measuring 34 Sq. Mtrs in plot No. 45 at ‘ESS’ Sector, Itanagar. According to the petitioner, he has constructed a 3 (three) storied building based on the aforesaid allotment letter.

¶23

ii. Thereafter, one Neelam Lel, filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Chief Estate Officer, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar alleging illegal encroachment of Govt. Residential Quarter No. 18/T-I, ESS Sector, Itanagar.

¶24

III. On the basis of such complaint, a Show-Cause Notice dated 05.08.2020 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply to the aforesaid Show-Cause Notice and took a stand that the complainant and the petitioner has amicably settled the dispute.

¶25

IV. Subsequently, by an order dated 11.08.2020, the petitioner was directed to maintain a minimum distance of 4 (four) meters from the Govt. Quarter as per the sketch map of the allotment order and it was further directed that any structure falling within the 4 (four)

¶26

Page No.# 4/6

¶27

meters distance shall be evicted without further notice in terms of the executive order dated 03.09.2013 issued by the Secretary (Land Management), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.

¶28

V. Being aggrieved with the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Chief Estate Officer, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 12 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003 before the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said appeal is still not being decided.

¶29

VI. Though, a writ petition was filed registered as WP (C) 332 (AP) 2020 assailing the order dated 18.11.2020 and it was alleged that the appeal was not taken cognizance of, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of at the motion stage itself, with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar to take cognizance of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 19.11.2022 assailing the order dated 18.11.2020. This court also fixed 10.12.2020 for adjudication and it was directed that till 10.12.2020, the impugned order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Chief Estate Officer, Capital Complex, Itanagar shall remain suspended.

¶30

7. It is the contention of Mr. Tara that the said appeal has not yet been decided, in spite of the order of this Court, rather the petitioner is now sought to be criminally prosecuted. Mr. Tara further contends that the order dated 18.11.2020, which is based on the Executive Order dated 03.09.2013 no more subsists inasmuch as such order dated 03.09.2013

¶31

Page No.# 5/6

¶32

was withdrawn. Accordingly, Mr. Tara contends that the FIR was also lodged based on the same facts on the alleged encroachment of the Govt. Quarter. Therefore, in the given facts of the present case according to Mr. Tara, the Investigating Authority could not have filed a Charge-Sheet under Section 447 IPC.

¶33

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that even if the argument of Mr. Tara is accepted, it is clear in the Charge-Sheet that the petitioner has constructed beyond the aforesaid 4 meters inasmuch as according to him, the order dated 03.09.2013 no way allows construction or encroachment of any public premises.

¶34

9. Be that, as it may, this Court is also of the opinion that the matter is basically within the domain and under the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Arunachal Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 2003. Though, under section 3 of the PDPP Act, encroachment of Govt. premises is a punishable offence, however, in the Charge-Sheet, it was clearly stated that no case under Section 3 of the PDPP Act has been made out and therefore, in the given facts of the present case and the findings of the Investigating Officer as recorded hereinabove, the prosecution under Section 447 IPC could not have been initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, the proceeding of G. R. Case No. 664/2023 arising out of Itanagar P.S. Case/ FIR No. 190/2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia stands quashed.

¶35

10. However, parting with the record, it is made clear that the present

¶36

Page No.# 6/6

¶37

determination shall not be treated as comment on the merit of the appeal pending before the authority and this Court once again shall expect that the appellate authority shall complete the appeal within a reasonable time period and not beyond four months from today inasmuch as there was a direction by this Court as recorded hereinabove in WP (C) 332 (AP) 2020. It is also clarified that the authorities shall pass the order as per law and without being influenced by any comment made in the charge-sheet in GR case No.664/23.

¶38

With the above observation, this Criminal petition stands disposed

¶39

of.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Takot Taggu v. The State of Ap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Takot Taggu v. The State of Ap and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ariful Islam Vs The State of Ap

Raj Megu Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Yangbiu Takik and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Miss Leena Tallang Vs The State of Ap and Anr.

Tajen Yorpen and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Tame Tarang Vs The State of Ap