Criminal Revision No. 810 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 810 of 2007 Date of decision: 13th January, 2010 Pawan Kumar and others ......Petitioners Versus Smt. Pushpa Rani Bansal and another .......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioners. None for respondent no. 1. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G.Haryana, A.N.JINDAL,J.(Oral) The complainant/respondent is stressing her claim on the ground that she has been conferred ownership rights for the shop in question, situated at Railway Road near Shopping Complex, Mahendergarh, vide judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 213, instituted on 19.03.1994 and decided on 26.03.1994, suffered by Pawan Kumar. There is also no dispute that said decree is still sub judice, as the same has been challenged by way of separate suit filed by Pawan Kumar and it has also came on record that during the pendency of Civil Suit, Local Commissioner vide report dated 9.06.2003, had reported Criminal Revision No. 810 of 2007 -2- that Naresh Kumar Gupta is in possession of the said premises. The present complaint has been filed by Pushpa Rani Bansal, levelling allegations that the accused persons now petitioners fraudulently changed the entry in the House Tax Register relating to the shop in question from the name of respondent no. 1. Pushpa Rani Bansal/Complainant to the name of Nareh Kumar petitioner no. 3, without giving any notice and the copies of certain documents were not supplied inspite of repeated requests. If the allegations as set up in the complaint are admitted to be correct, even then no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioners and it is settled by now that the entries in the municipal record are not proof of title. However, these are made for the fiscal purposes i.e. for payment of house tax etc. The trial court dismissed the complaint and rightly held that the entry in the municipal record was only for fiscal purposes, in order to collect the revenue or House Tax from the person. Thus, the incorporation of the wrong entry in the record of the municipal committee does not constitute any offence. Even otherwise complainant, if aggrieved could apply for correction of the said entry by invoking the provisions of Section 80 and 81 of the Haryana Municipal Act. As such order of dismissing the complaint, passed by the trial court was quite valid and the Learned Sessions Judge has not taken correct note of the facts and set aside the order Criminal Revision No. 810 of 2007 -3- passed by the trial court. As a matter of fact it is not a case where some entry in the public record was tampered and changed without evidence. The dispute relates to ownership of the property on one side the complainant is claiming property on the basis of a collusive decree where on the other side Naresh Kumar Gupta is claiming the same on the basis of the sale deed. The matter is still sub judice before the Civil Court waiting adjudication. Therefore, the civil dispute can't be given the colour of criminal case and initiation of criminal proceedings, in such peculiar circumstances of the case, would be misuse of the process. Resultantly, the petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 28.03.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, is set aside and order dated 23.12.2004, passed by the trial court is restored. [A.N.JINDAL] JUDGE 13th January, 2010 Shivani Kaushik