1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 32959-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.11.2009 *** Prem Chand .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. C.L. Pawar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 15 dated 6.10.2008, under Sections 420, 448, 506 IPC and Section 3 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 2001(hereinafter called as Act) registered at Police Station NRI, SBS Nagar, District Nawanshahr and consequent proceedings taken therein. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No.2 Parkash Singh filed an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nawanshahr and sought police help to take back the possession of shop, belonging to him, situated at Banga Road, Near Sutlej Petrol Pump, Nawanshahr from Prem Chand i.e. the present petitioner, It was alleged in the FIR that the said Prem Chand, claiming himself as tenant over the said shop had filed a suit in the court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.12.1994. The appeal preferred by Prem Chand was also dismissed by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 6.4.1996. Thereafter, Prem Chand filed an appeal before the High Court, which was also dismissed by the Court on 18.11.1996. The complainant further alleged that despite having his appeal dismissed by the High Court, against which Prem Chand had not preferred 2 any appeal, he is in unauthorized occupation of the shop in dispute and refused to vacate the same and also failed to pay any rent since 5.5.1993 till date. Thus, possession was sought to be delivered to his attorney Naranjan Singh i.e. respondent No.3, enabling the complainant to start his own business therein. Photo copy of order dated 6.4.1996 was also annexed with the complaint. On these broad allegations, the impugned FIR was got registered by the police against the petitioner for the commission of offence under Sections 420, 448, 506 IPC and under Section 3 of the Act ibid, in which after investigation, the police submitted the challan and the petitioner is now stated to have been charge-sheeted by the Court below and trial has commenced. The quashing has been sought by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the same has been got registered by the petitioner by mis- stating the facts and no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner; the impugned FIR is totally misuse of process of law and that the respondent-complainant can avail civil remedy for reverting back the possession of shop from the petitioner. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, it has been averred that on being found prima facie case for the commission of offence under Sections 420, 448, 506 IPC and 3 of the Act, the FIR against the petitioner was registered and on completion thereof challan was filed and the Court is already seized of the matter, hence the instant quashing petition is not maintainable. Arguments have been scanned. In the instant case, from the contents of the FIR, as referred to above, it is abundantly clear that none of the offences under which the same has been registered, is made out against the petitioner. A bare reading of the FIR makes it clear that there are no allegations of cheating, criminal trespass or intimidation against the petitioner, rather the impugned FIR is result of mis-statement of facts by the complainant. It is apt to mention here that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent No.2 and sought protection of his possession by issuing injunction order. It was his positive case that he is in possession over the shop in dispute as a tenant since 1980 and the same may be protected. His said suit was dismissed and the appeal filed by him also 3 meted with the same fate. However, in regular second appeal before this Court, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were modified and it was held that since the petitioner herein is in possession over the shop in dispute, he can not be dispossessed from the same except in due course of law. It was not that this Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, but had given a liberty to respondent No.2-owner to resort to legal procedure for getting his shop vacated. This judgment was passed way back in the year 1996 and it has not been shown that during all these years, any eviction petition or any other steps were taken by the landlord for reverting back the possession of the shop in dispute. It is only in the year 2008, respondent No.2 got the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner, that too by mis- stating the facts. Surprisingly, the investigating agency also seems to be in a haste to get a case registered against the petitioner, without there being any proof in this regard and without ascertaining the factual aspect of the matter. The things do not rest here. As per Annexure P-3 Prem Chand got instituted a complaint against Naranjan Singh-respondent No.3 (attorney of Parkash Singh) and his brother Nirmal Singh under Sections 448, 427, 380 and 456 IPC and in that case the accused i.e. Naranjan Singh and Nirmal Singh appeared and stated that they will compensate the complainant to the extent of Rs.5000/- and further undertook not to cause any damage or loss to the shop of the complainant therein i.e. Prem Chand and will take the order of this Court. Accordingly, that complaint was withdrawn by the complainant in the year 2000. A perusal of the Act of 2001 reveals that in the year 2001 some amendment was made in the Act of 1949 and some provisions were inserted to get recover immediate possession of residential building or scheduled building and/ or non-residential building to accrue to non-resident Indian. But a careful perusal of the same reveals that the same cannot extend any benefit to the complainant to launch criminal proceedings against the person in possession of the property of NRI, rather it has to approach the Controller for recovery of possession. Therefore, in totality of facts and circumstances, the case in hand is an excellent example of abuse of process of law and no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner. So far as the objection of learned State counsel as to the maintainability of the instant quashing petition is concerned, in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 4 383, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in clear words that where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive or where the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and improbable, the Court would be within its power to quash the complaint/ FIR. The vague allegations in the FIR against petitioner warrants the interference of this Court for quashing all the proceedings against him with an objective to meet the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In view of the discussion above, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned FIR and consequent proceedings taken therein are quashed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 25,2009 Jiten