Crl. Misc. No. M-26238 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-26238 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.8.2011. Santokh Singh ........Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint dated 28.2.2006 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323/452/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 20.8.2009 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been falsely involved in this case. The civil suit filed by the complainant seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in his peaceful possession was got dismissed as withdrawn qua the petitioner. There was no medical evidence qua the alleged injuries, suffered by the complainant. The complaint had been Crl. Misc. No. M-26238 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - filed as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner against the respondent No.2. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner had lodged FIR No. 57 dated 23.2.2006 against respondent No.2 under Sections 323, 447 IPC. In the said FIR, the matter was duly investigated and a perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-3) reveals that after investigation it was found by the investigating officer that petitioner was in possession of the land and the opposite party, in order to get the possession of the land in question, had started interfering in his peaceful possession. Respondent No.2 filed a civil suit seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants No. 2 and 3 not to interfere in his peaceful possession. In the said suit, the present petitioner was impleaded as defendant No. 1. However, vide order dated 18.3.2010 (Annexure P-7), the suit was got dismissed as withdrawn by respondent No.2 qua the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner was in possession of the property in question. Respondent No.2 filed the complaint in question against the petitioner under Sections 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC. In the said complaint (Annexure P-1), it has been averred by respondent No.2 that he had purchased the suit property from Gurdev Singh vide sale deed dated 19.1.1999 and mutation had been sanctioned in his favour. A dispute arose between the complainant and the accused regarding the house constructed Crl. Misc. No. M-26238 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - by him. The complainant filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the accused and in the said suit parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession. On 05.2.2006, at about 7.30 P.M., the accused-petitioner along with three unidentified persons entered the house of the complainant- respondent No.2 while he was attending to his patients and started threatening the complainant with dire consequences. The three unidentified persons caught hold of the complainant and the petitioner gave two-three blows in the stomach of the respondent No.2 and threatened him to withdraw the civil cases. Chairs and tables lying at the spot were thrown out. In support of his complaint, respondent No.2 led his evidence and on the basis of the said preliminary evidence, petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face the trial for an offence under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC by the trial court vide the impugned order dated 20.8.2009 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner, in support of his case, has not led any medical evidence. The civil suit allegedly filed by the respondent No.2 has since been withdrawn qua the petitioner. During investigation in the FIR lodged by the petitioner against respondent No.2, it transpired that the petitioner was in possession of the property in dispute. It appears that the complaint in question was filed as a counter-blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner. The petitioner had levelled allegations against respondent No.2 in the FIR that he had been threatened by respondent No.2 and some unknown persons that he would be forcibly dispossessed from the property in dispute. On 14.12.2005, respondent No.2 took forcible possession of some Crl. Misc. No. M-26238 of 2010 (O&M) -4 - portion of the land and had raised boundary wall. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The complaint dated 28.02.2006 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 323/452/506/34, and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, including the summoning order dated 20.8.2009 (Annexure P-2), are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 18, 2011 Gurpreet