Crl. Misc. No. M-23675 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-23675 of 2010 Date of decision : 10.11.2010 Ravinder Singh and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) The matrix of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, as claimed by the petitioners is that, one Chanan Singh was a displaced person. He was held entitled to the allotment of land vide order dated 02.11.1998 (Annexure P-1) of the Settlement Commissioner, Department of Revenue & Rehabilitation, Punjab. In pursuance thereof, a proposal for the allotment of land (Annexure P-2) was prepared. Allottee Chanan Singh accepted the proposal and moved an application dated 05.04.2002 for delivery of actual possession to the concerned Tehsildar. The same was marked to Halqa Kanungo and then to Patwari to do the needful. The possession of the allotted land was actually delivered to the allottee, after following the procedure, vide Rapat No. 298 dated 21.04.2002 (Annexure P-3) duly entered in the Raznamcha Waqiati. Not only that, the same was implemented in the revenue record as per Jamabandies Crl. Misc. No. M-23675 of 2010 -2- (Annexures P-4 and P-5). Subsequently, allottee-Chanan Singh sold the land in dispute to Petitioner No.1-Ravinder Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 27.06.2002 for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,18,000/- and mutation bearing No.815 (Annexure P-6) was accordingly sanctioned in his (vendees) favour. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that the complainant party tried to forcibly dispossess petitioner No.1-Ravinder Singh from the suit land, which necessitated him to file a civil suit for permanent injunction against them. The suit was decreed in his (petitioner No.1) favour by the trial court, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 29.08.2007 (Annexure P-7). The appeal filed by the complainant party was dismissed as well. 3. Now, the petitioners claimed that thereafter complainant-Joginder Singh (respondent No.2) lodged a false complaint against them on the ground that they had wrongly obtained the possession of the allotted land, by manipulating the entry of delivery of possession in the raznamcha. On the basis of which, the police registered a false criminal case against them, vide FIR No. 134 dated 08.07.2004 (Annexure P-8), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 465, 471 and 120-B IPC, in the Police Station Balachaur, District Nawanshahr. 4. As soon as, the petitioners came to know about the registration of a false case at the instance of Joginder Singh (cousin brother of Jograj Singh), they moved the application (Annexure P-9) to the Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar. Certain clarifications were sought from the Tehsildar, vide letter dated 11.08.2004 (Annexure P-10). In pursuance thereto, the Tehsildar, Balachaur, informed the police that the delivery of possession of the allotted land was rightly delivered to the allottee, vide report (Annexure P-11). During the course of inquiry, the statements of the parties were also recorded and the investigating agency came to the conclusion that complainant-respondent No.2 lodged a false Crl. Misc. No. M-23675 of 2010 -3- report against the petitioners and cancellation report was prepared but the same was not submitted by the police in the Court. 5. The petitioners further claimed that thereafter, they filed Crl. Misc. No. M-22129 of 2005 for quashing the FIR No.134 dated 8.7.2004, in which the State counsel filed the reply that the police has prepared the cancellation report and the same will be presented to the concerned Court within a period of two weeks. On the assurance of the State counsel, the petition came to be disposed of by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court (Satish Kumar Mittal, J.), vide order dated 17.05.2006 (Annexure P-13) with the liberty to the petitioners to again approach this Court, if the cancellation report is not accepted by the concerned Court. 6. Sequelly, the police submitted the cancellation report in the Court. At the same time, complainant-respondent No.2 at the instance of Jograj Singh, again filed a private complaint (Annexure P-14), on the same cause of action and for the same offences against the petitioners and Chanan Singh-allottee. The trial Court clubbed the cancellation report with the complaint case. Subsequently, the trial Magistrate summoned them as accused to face the trial for the indicated offences, vide summoning order dated 22.08.2007 (Annexure P-20). 7. In the manner, the petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied and instituted the present petition for quashing the complaint (Annexure P-14) and summoning order (Annexure P-20), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record, with their valuable help, and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 9. What is not disputed here is that complainant-Joginder Singh (respondent No.2) earlier lodged a criminal case, mainly on the ground that the Crl. Misc. No. M-23675 of 2010 -4- petitioners-accused have prepared a false warrant of possession (Rapat No.298) (Annexure P-3) and illegally delivered the possession of the indicated land to Chanan Singh by the revenue officials in order to cause loss and damage to him (complainant) and Jograj Singh. The matter was investigated and the cancellation report was submitted in the Court. At the same time, complainant-respondent No.2, again filed a complaint (Annexure P-14) on the same cause of action and the petitioners were summoned for the same offences by virtue of summoning order (Annexure P-20). 10. Such, thus, being the position on record, now the short and significant question though important arises for determination in this case is as to whether subsequently initiation of the criminal complaint case and summoning order are misuse of process of law, as claimed on behalf of the petitioners-accused or are legally maintainable as alleged on behalf of complainant-respondent No.2. 11. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the initiation of criminal complaint (Annexure P-14), on the same cause of action and summoning order (Annexure P-20) are sheer misuse of process of law in this relevant connection. 12. As is evident from the record that in pursuance of the orders (Annexure P-1) & (Annexure P-2), the land in dispute was allotted to Chanan Singh, being a displaced person. He moved an application to the Tehsildar for delivery of its actual possession, which was marked to the Kanungo and then to Patwari for necessary action. In pursuance thereto, Halqa Patwari actually delivered the possession of the alleged land to Chanan Singh, after following the due procedure, vide Rapat No. 298 (Annexure P-3). The same was implemented in the revenue record/jamabandies (Annexures P-4 & P-5). In this view of the matter, it cannot possibly be saith that the possession of the alleged land was wrongly delivered to Chanan Singh by the revenue officials. Subsequently, petitioner No.1-Ravinder Singh purchased the land in dispute from allottee- Crl. Misc. No. M-23675 of 2010 -5- Chanan Singh, vide registered sale-deed dated 27.06.2002 and mutation (Annexure P-6) to that effect, has already been sanctioned in his favour. After investigation, the police found that earlier the complainant lodged a false F.I.R./case against the petitioners and the cancellation report was accordingly submitted in the Court. 13. Not only that, petitioner No.1-Ravinder Singh filed the civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining complainant-Joginder Singh etc. from interfering in his lawful peaceful and continuous possession, in any manner, of the land in dispute. From the pleadings of the parties, the civil court framed issue Nos.1 and 2, which are as follows : - 1. Whether Chanan Singh was put into possession of suit land on 21.4.2002 as alleged? OPP 2. Whether Chanan Singh sold land measuring 4 kanals to plaintiff on 26.6.2002 and handed over possession of same to him, as alleged? OPP” Having completed all the codal formalities, both the issues were decided in favour of, and the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was decreed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.2007 (Annexure P-7) 14. It is not a matter of dispute that Civil Appeal No. 79/07/RBT/42/10 filed by the complainant party was also dismissed by the District Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, vide judgment and decree dated 26.07.2010 (Anneuxre P-22). The trial Court as well as the first appellate court have recorded a finding of fact based on the evidence that the land was allotted to Chanan Singh, who was a displaced person. He moved an application to the Tehsildar, Mahal-cum-Sales- M.O., Balachaur, who marked the same to the field kanungo and he marked the same for further action to patwari and patawari halqa has rightly delivered the possession of land in dispute to Chanan Singh. 15. Once, the civil court has already decided the specific issues with regard to the validity of delivery of possession of the land in dispute to Chanan Crl. Misc. No. M-23675 of 2010 -6- Singh (vide Anneuxre P-3), then the complainant cannot legally be permitted to again re-agitate and lodge the criminal complaint (Annexure P-14) that the delivery of possession to the Chanan Singh in this respect, was illegal. If the complaint (Annexure P-14) is allowed to continue, then there will be no end of litigation and the judgments & decrees of civil/appellate Courts would pale into insignificance and the people will loose faith in civil judicial system. 16. Meaning thereby, the petitioners did not commit any offence in this respect and the initiation of criminal complaint (Annexure P-14) and summoning order (Annexure P-20) are grave/gross misuse of process of the Court and deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 17. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. The impugned complaint (Annexure P-14) and summoning order (Annexure P-20) are hereby quashed. The petitioners are discharged from the indicated criminal prosecution (complaint P-14) in this relevant context. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) November 10, 2010 Judge naresh.k