Crl. Misc. No. M-27168 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-27168 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 02, 2011 Baru Ram .... Petitioner Vs. Beena Devi and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. A. K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. K. Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Baru Ram has filed this petition under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for initiating appropriate proceedings against respondents Beena Devi and her brothers Kuldip and Mahi Pal. Relevant facts necessitating the filing of the instant petition are contained in motion order dated 17.09.2010, which is reproduced hereunder :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner, Crl. Misc. No. M-27168 of 2010 2 inter-alia, contends that respondents no.1 to 3 have committed offences under Sections 120-B, 193 and 419 India Penal Code. It is submitted that joint land of the parties was partitioned on 17.1.2007 and Sanad partition was issued on 22.5.2008. Thereafter, warrants of possession were issued by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rajaund on 20.3.2009 (Annexure P-1). Respondent No.1- Beena Devi along with her sister relinquished their shares in the land in favour of their brothers (Kuldip and Mahi Pal-respondents No.2 and 3) vide relinquishment deed dated 10.4.2007 (Annexure P-2). Mutation on the basis of relinquishment deed was sanctioned on 20.2.2008 (Annexure P-3). Despite that an application was filed by Smt. Beena- respondent no.1 for setting aside the Sanad Taksim dated 22.5.2008 which was dismissed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal on 30.6.2009. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Kaithal on 17.09.2009. The Crl. Misc. No. M-27168 of 2010 3 revision of Beena was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. On 18.11.2009. The further revision before the Financial Commissioner was dismissed on 02.02.2010. Ultimately, Civil Writ Petition No.4241 of 2010 was dismissed by this Court on 28.06.2010. It was held by this Court that the relinquishment deed was executed by Smt. Beena-respondent no.1 in favour of respondents no.2 and 3 on 10.4.2007 and the application for setting aside exparte proceedings was filed on 29.4.2009 after the execution of the relinquishment deed. Therefore, Smt. Beena respondent no.1 had no right to file an application for setting aside exparte proceedings. It is submitted that the false statements were made by respondent no.1 in collusion with respondents no.2 and 3. Notice of motion for 20.12.2010.” Respondents have not filed any reply. On the preceding date of hearing, it was stated by counsel for respondents that respondents do not Crl. Misc. No. M-27168 of 2010 4 want to file any reply. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the facts and contentions noticed in the motion order, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by instituting criminal complaint for various offences. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents contended that respondent no.2 and 3 had not initiated the proceedings regarding setting aside of Sanad Taksim and the said proceedings were initiated by respondent no.1 only and it was respondent no.1 only, who filed appeal, revisions and writ petition, and therefore, respondents no.2 and 3 cannot be proceeded against for any offence. It was also contended that respondent no.1 was residing in matrimonial home in District Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) and she was got wrongly proceeded against ex-parte in the partition proceedings, and therefore, she exercised her right to get the ex-parte Sanad Taksim set aside so as to protect her right and interest in the joint land. Counsel for respondents also contended that writ petition stands disposed of by this Court without any direction for initiating criminal proceedings, and therefore, the instant petition is abuse of process of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondents Crl. Misc. No. M-27168 of 2010 5 no.2 and 3 are also liable because it was pursuant to conspiracy of all the three respondents that respondent no.1 initiated the proceedings and took the same up to this Court by filing writ petition so as to prolong the possession of respondents no.2 and 3 over the land, which had come to the share of the petitioner in partition and for which, warrant of possession had been issued by the Revenue Court. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. In so far as respondents no.2 and 3 are concerned, no prima facie case for proceeding against them for any offence is made out. It is correct that respondents no.2 and 3 might have been benefitted from the action of respondent no.1, who might have initiated the said action with motive of causing benefit to respondents no.2 and 3 being her brothers, but merely on this ground, respondents no.2 and 3 cannot be proceeded against for any criminal offence. However, in so far as respondent no.1 is concerned, prima facie there is sufficient ground for proceeding against her for offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC). It is undisputed that respondent no.1, along with her other sisters, executed registered relinquishment deed dated 10.04.2007 (Annexure P-2) regarding her entire share/interest in the joint land in favour of her brothers – respondents no.2 and 3. Even mutation on the basis of said relinquishment deed was sanctioned on 20.02.2008. However, in spite thereof, respondent no.1 filed Crl. Misc. No. M-27168 of 2010 6 application on 29.04.2009 for setting aside ex-parte order/decree dated 22.05.2008 passed by the Revenue Court claiming share in the joint land, whereas more than two years prior to it, she had executed relinquishment deed and was thereafter not left with any share, right, title or interest in the joint land. Respondent no.1 not only filed application for setting aside ex- parte order/decree, but also after dismissal of the said application, she carried the same further by way of appeal, two revisions and Civil Writ Petition in this Court. Respondent no.1, knowing fully well that she had executed relinquishment deed on 10.04.2007 and was, therefore, left with no right, title or interest in the land in question, still asserted herself to be co-sharer in the land in question. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that respondent no.1 prima facie committed the offence under Section 193 IPC by filing writ petition in this Court accompanied by affidavit based on false averments. Respondent no.1 even obtained order of interim stay from this Court thereby causing loss and injury to the interest of petitioner herein. Delivery of possession of the land falling to the share of the petitioner was thereby delayed. Respondent no.1 has abused the process of the Court and polluted the stream of administration of justice. Non-initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in most of the cases is acting as encouragement for such litigants. This tendency has to be curbed. Accordingly, I find it to be a fit case to proceed against respondent no.1 only for offence under Section 193 Crl. Misc. No. M-27168 of 2010 7 IPC by lodging of necessary complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. However, as noticed herein before, there is no ground for proceeding against respondents no.2 and 3 for any offence. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as against respondents no.2 and 3, but is allowed against respondent no.1. Necessary criminal complaint be lodged against respondent no.1 in Court of competent jurisdiction by Registrar General/authorized Officer of this Court. September 02, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE