CRM No. M-7520 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-7520 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.3.2009 Sunita Devi ...Petitioner Versus Rajesh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner, who is a complainant, is aggrieved by the order dated 19th December, 2007, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, dismissing her complaint and refusing to summon the accused, as also order dated 22nd January, 2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat rejecting her revision petition against the said order. Briefly, the allegation levelled by the petitioner in her complaint is that her co-sharers (respondent No.2) sold land in excess of her share. Thus, respondent No.2 alongwith other accused was guilty of offences of cheating, breach of trust etc. The complainant examined four witnesses while leading her preliminary evidence. However, the trial court came to the conclusion that no criminal liability could be said to arise as selling of excess share was only a civil wrong. The appellate court also upheld this finding and observed that no specific parcel of CRM No. M-7520 of 2009 2 land had been allotted to the petitioner. Both petitioner and respondent No.2 were in joint possession of the land in question. Thus, it was for the civil court to decide whether respondent No.2 had sold land in excess of her share. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given a careful thought to the matter in hand. It is evident that main grouse of the petitioner in the complaint is that Kamlesh accused No.2 in collusion with other accused had sold land of Rasta and the same was in fact in excess of her share. Thus, land to the extent of 17 sq. yards had been sold by accused Kamlesh in excess of her share. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner admitted that both petitioner and accused No.2 are co-sharers and a civil suit in respect of the dispute is also pending. I am of the considered view that there is no ground to interfere with the orders, impugned in the present petition. The courts below have correctly reached the conclusion that the entire dispute is of civil nature and remedy by way of criminal proceedings is misconceived. I thus find no ground to interfere in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE March 18, 2009 'rajpal'