Crl. Misc. No. M-29166 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-29166 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 23-09-2011 Amarjit Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Gulzar Mohd, Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed with a prayer that FIR no. 84 dated 22.8.2011 under Sections 447, 427, 506 IPC at P.S Moonak, District Sangrur be quashed as the allegations set out therein are false. Learned counsel for the petitioner would have the Court to believe that the petitioner alongwith complainant are co-sharers in a chunk of land regarding which neither of the parties has any settled possession and in the absence of any partition of the land, the allegations of trespass and consequent interference and attempt to usurp the possession are unsustainable considering the fact that each co-sharer has a right to possess the land alongwith other co-sharers with an equal status of an owner. Prima facie this Court was swayed by the contention that has been raised before this Court but upon perusal of the Annexure P-3 which is the copy of the plaint in the suit which the petitioner himself has initiated it transpires that possession of land vis-a-vis the petitioner was specific as his Crl. Misc. No. M-29166 of 2011 (O&M) 2 right flows from the sale deed dated 4.6.2010 pertaining to 47 kanals out of 516 kanals and 11 marlas regarding which specific khasra nos. have been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not advance any argument on this in the initial stage and it was only when confronted with Annexure P-3 that he tried to wriggle out of the situation by praying that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant petition. The FIR discloses the commission of some offence which is evident if the settled possession of the petitioner is to be taken account of. This is not to suggest that allegations set out in the FIR are correct or incorrect as Court in the exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C does not have any mechanism to comment upon the veracity of the contentions. But suffice it to say that FIR shows commission of some offence and thus the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C would be loathe to exercise its power to quash the FIR at the threshold when the investigation has just commenced. No ground to grant the prayer of the petitioner has been made out in view of the aforesaid reasons. Hence, dismissed. September 23, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge