Crl. Misc. No. M- 4533 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 4533 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: December 12, 2011 Rajesh Kumar & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Strange it may sound but it is alleged that the petitioners have stolen three cement pillars, which were fixed in the land jointly held by them with their co-sharers. How such FIR was registered against the petitioners, for which they have been chargesheeted also would neet lot of explanation. It is not disputed before me that the petitioners are co- sharers with respondent No.2, who is the complainant. They are accused of committing theft of cement pillars fixed on the joint land. The petitioners, thus, have approached this Court for quashing of FIR No.322, dated 29.10.2007, registered under Sections 379/506 IPC at Crl. Misc. No. M- 4533 of 2008 -2- Police Station Mahendergarh, Distt. Mahendergarh, on the ground that they being co-sharers cannot be accused of any theft of cement pillars, which may be fixed in the land which is jointly held by the complainant. The facts as disclosed in the FIR would show that complainant is the brother of the petitioners, who has another brother Rajesh, who is handicapped. The complainant has alleged fixed cement pillars in his fields. Rajesh and Suresh, S/o Rampal had purchased the land from the complainant's uncle Dharmapal on 28.10.2007. With intention to possess the land, Suresh, Rajesh, Sube Singh, S/o Baldev Singh, Satish, Sandeep, S/o Sube Singh, Kanwar Singh, S/o Parbhati Lal, Sharda, W/o Suresh and Kusum Lata, W/o Rajesh came on a tractor and lifted the pillars from their land besides advancing threat. On this basis, FIR has been registered. In the reply filed, it is disclosed that the complainant and Chhanga Ram are physically handicapped persons. They have fixed cement pillars in their fields, whereas the person named in the FIR had lifted and removed these pillars. It is not disputed that the property is jointly held by the petitioners along with others and accordingly, it is observed that the offences as mentioned in the FIR are not made out from the facts of the case. Counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the case of Jaspal Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2011(3), RCR(Criminal) 190, where somewhat similar issue arose. The issue in the said case was that accused persons had cut five trees from the land of the complainant and had taken Crl. Misc. No. M- 4533 of 2008 -3- away and also taken illegal possession of 28 marlas of land. It is further held that the petitioners and respondents in the said case were co- sharers and it was a joint land of all brothers. The Court found that no offence is made out and directions were issued to quash the FIR. Apparently similar is the situation in the present case. The allegation of theft appears to have been made more on account of some spite rather than any actual cause or reason. Once the petitioners and the respondent-complainant are joint holder or co- sharers, the allegation of entering into the land or removing any pillar, which may have been fixed, would not reveal any offence under Section 379 IPC. Otherwise also, I find that offence alleged would be trivial in nature that it may not require the Court to detain itself and decide the culpability in such a case. Section 95 of the IPC clearly provides that nothing is an offence by reason that it causes or that it is intended to cause or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. Removing three cement pillars from a joint land, in my view, can be said to be such an instance that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of harm. It will cause harm so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain. The case, thus, is made out for quashing the FIR. The present petition is allowed. FIR No.322, dated 29.10.2007, registered under Sections 379/506 IPC, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. December 12, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE