IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M-34500 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.12.2010 Janak Raj …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S.SARON, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 17.9.2009 (P4) whereby cancellation report has been accepted by the learned JMIC Malerkotla and that he was not heard. The learned Magistrate, however, observed that notice was sent to the complainant-petitioner on which, it was reported that he refused to accept the summons and said that he had no time. The report is further signed by two witnesses. This, in fact, is disputed by the petitioner. In any case, it may be noticed that the petitioner submitted an application dated 4.11.2001 (P1) to the SSP Sangrur, for registration of a case against the accused – Smt Nirmala Devi, Renu Bala and Santosh Devi. On the basis of the said application, FIR 25 dated 27.2.2002 was registered at PS Ahmedgarh for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The grievance of the complainant-petitioner was that the accused through her husband had sold him land measuring 2 Kanals 5 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhadaur, Sub Tehsil Ahmedgarh and got a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner for a consideration of Rs 3.00 lakhs on 3.5.2001. Later, when the petitioner Cr Misc M- 34500 of 2010 2 approached the revenue authorities for sanctioning the mutation, the concerned officers/officials refused to enter the mutation on the ground that the accused were not the owners of the property sold to the petitioner. It was alleged that the accused had induced the petitioner to give Rs 3.00 lakhs alleging to be the owners of the property sold to him knowing fully well that they were playing fraud. It is not disputed that after registration of the FIR, the accused filed an application dated 1.4.2001 before the SSP Sangrur for declaring them innocent by alleging that they had committed no offence and that they were innocent. It was mentioned that mutation had already been sanctioned in the name of the petitioner by Assistant Collector IInd Grade. The SSP Sangrur ordered cancellation of FIR 25 dated 27.2.2002 and institution of a complaint under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner. The order of filing the complaint under Section 182 IPC was assailed by the petitioner by way of Criminal Misc M-51292 of 2002, which was quashed by this Court vide order dated 14.7.2003 being premature. Now, the cancellation report has been accepted. It has been observed that on the basis of sale deed 133 dated 3.5.2001 in favour of the petitioner, mutation 7947 dated 7.12.2001 was entered and was accepted by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade on 31.12.2001. It has further been reported that there was a stay order from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn), Narnaul, which has been vacated and is recorded in the Rapat Roznamcha by the Halqa Patwari at Sr No.147 dated 18.12.2001. Besides, as per the revenue record, the petitioner is now shown to be recorded as owner of the property. Therefore, no offence is made out. Keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is recorded as owner of the property and no offence is made out, the application for Cr Misc M- 34500 of 2010 3 registration of a FIR itself was untenable. Therefore, even if it is to be taken that the petitioner was not heard before accepting the cancellation report, he has been duly heard now and nothing has been shown to dislodge the reasoning recorded by the learned JMIC Malerkotla in his order dated 17.9.2009 (P4). Therefore, it may be noticed that in the application dated 4.11.2001 (P1), the petitioner has stated that the revenue officials had refused to enter mutation in his name on the plea that the accused persons are not the owners of the property sold to the petitioner. Had this been so, the mutation would not have been entered and sanctioned on the basis of sale deed 133 dated 3.5.2001 in his favour. The petitioner then contended that the stay order was operating and this fact was not disclosed by the accused to the petitioner. This in fact is not the case of the petitioner in his complaint dated 4.11.2001 (P1). In any case, now that the mutation has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and the land vests in him, the allegations as made in the complaint (P1) on the basis of which FIR 25 dated 27.2.2002 was registered, do not survive. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order dated 17.9.2009 (P4) passed by the learned JMIC Malerkotla. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Any observations made in this order, however, shall not affect the merits of any other pending litigation between the petitioner and the accused. 1.12.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge