Crl. Misc. No.M-29723 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-29723 of 2010 Date of decision: 07.10.2010 Jagmohan Singh and others .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Sandeep Singh Deol, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, AA.G., Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short-the Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR No.126 dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran, for the offences under Sections 427, 447, 506, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code (IPC-for short). The impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) has been registered on the statement of Smt.Sukhjinder Kaur, who is the brother's wife of Jagmohan Singh (petitioner No.1). She has alleged that her husband Sardara Singh and her son Mandeep Singh are lodged in jail and her other son Balwinder Singh is absconding. The petitioners, it is alleged, on 25.10.2009 at about 2.00 p.m.-3.00 p.m. came on their tractor and broke down the iron gate which is installed in their property by striking the tractor against it. They demolished the wall and took possession of their property. At that time, only women were present in the house and they kept on threatening them. There is already an order of status quo regarding the Crl. Misc. No.M-29723 of 2010 ::2:: property. It may be noticed that the petitioner No.1-Jagmohan Singh had lodged FIR No.23 dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure P-2) at Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran, alleging commission of offences under Sections 379, 442, 454, 427, 506 IPC against Sardara Singh son of Bhan Singh as also Baghel Singh, Balwinder Singh and Mandeep Singh sons of Sardara Singh. Mohinder Kaur and Rupinder Singh, who are mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of Jagmohan Singh (petitioner No.1) are owners of land measuring 2 Kanals 10 Marlas out of land measuring 6 Kanals 10 Marlas comprised in rectangle No.98 Khasra No.10 (6-10). An agreement to sell dated 16.09.1985 (Annexure P-3) was executed between Balwant Singh son of Surain Singh and Lakhbir Singh son of Bhan Singh in respect of land measuring 2 Kanals 10 Marlas. Lakhbir Singh purchaser is the father-in-law of Jagmohan Singh (petitioner No.1) and he is in possession of the property. After the death of Lakhbir Singh his wife Mohinder Kaur (mother-in-law of petitioner No.1) and his son Rupinder Singh (brother-in-law of petitioner No.1) purchased the said land vide three sale deeds. The said property was purchased by Mohinder Kaur (mother-in-law of petitioner No.1) vide sale deeds dated 09.03.2009 (Annexure P-4) and 12.03.2009 (Annexure P-5). It was also purchased by Rupinder Singh (brother-in-law of petitioner No.1) vide sale deed dated 16.03.2009 (Annexure P-6). The mutation of the said land was also sanctioned on 01.04.2009 (Annexures P-7, P-8 and P-9) in favour of Mohinder Kaur and Rupinder Singh. Lakhbir Singh during his life time had constructed a boundary wall around the purchased land and had constructed three shops, one servant room and two cattle sheds. In the haveli in the said land , he had also put a gobar gas plant. He had an electricity connection (Annexure P-10) in his name. A reference is made to the site plan (Annexure P-11). Lakhbir Singh was shot dead by his brother Crl. Misc. No.M-29723 of 2010 ::3:: Sardara Singh on 08.04.2001 in connection with a land dispute. Sardara Singh and his sons were sentenced to life imprisonment. During pendency of the appeal Sardara Singh visited the village and in order to take illegal possession of the said land, it is alleged that he broke the locks of the haveli, damaged the pipes of the gobar and stole four girders. FIR No.23 dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure P-2) for offences under Sections 379, 442, 454, 427 and 506 IPC was lodged at Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran against Sardara Singh and his two sons Baghel Singh and Mandeep Singh. Jagmohan Singh (petitioner No.1) is holding General Power of Attorney of his mother-in-law and brother-in-law. A suit for permanent injunction has also been filed by petitioner No.1 against Sardara Singh and his two sons. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned FIR dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) has been lodged by Sukhjinder Kaur, wife of Sardara Singh as a counter-blast to FIR No.23 dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure P-2) registered at Police Station, Verowal, District Tarn Taran. Sukhjinder Kaur is the brother's wife of the father-in- law of Jagmohan Singh (petitioner No.1). There is a long history of litigation between the two families in which the father-in-law of petitioner No.1 was murdered by Sardara Singh-husband of the complainant. Further proceedings are also pending. It is submitted that since the land was in possession of father-in-law of petitioner No.1 since the entering into agreement to sell dated 16.09.1985 (Annexure P-3) and thereafter, sale deeds (Anneuxres P-4 to P-6) and mutations (Annexures P-7 to P-9) have also been sanctioned, the complainant-Sukhjinder Kaur has no concern with the land, as such, the offence of criminal trespass is not made out since the land is not owned by the complainant-Sukhjinder Kaur but is owned by the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of Jagmohan Singh (petitioner No.1). It is submitted that no such incident ever occurred. Even Crl. Misc. No.M-29723 of 2010 ::4:: in the inquiry reports submitted by Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, on 31.08.2009, it is submitted that it was concluded therein that Sardara Singh was a subborn and recalcitrant person, who killed his brother Lakhwinder Singh and yet threatening his brother's wife-Mohinder Kaur (mother-in-law of petitioner No.1). After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the investigation in the case is still going on and is not complete. The case of the petitioner is that they are the purchasers of the property when the incident had occurred. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to embark upon an inquiry and go into the veracity of facts and appreciate the documents produced so as to ascertain whether the incident had occurred at the place which is said to have been purchased by the mother-in-law and brother-in- law (Mohinder Kaur and Rupinder Singh) respectively of petitioner No.1. The challan, in the case, has not been filed so far. It is the duty and an obligation on the police to investigate into the matter and ascertain whether the facts therein disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not and thereafter file its final report accordingly in the Court. The said procedure is not liable to be short-circuited or circumvented by resort to proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient if the petitioners raise their pleas before the Investigating Authorities itself which is seized of the matter. The petition at this stage is premature and is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 07, 2010 sukhpreet Crl. Misc. No.M-29723 of 2010 ::5::