Crl.Misc.No.M-30988 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-30988 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 07.09.2009 Mohinder Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. The State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Yash Pal Malik, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr.Rajinder S.Rana, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing of FIR No.245 dated 23.9.2008 under Section 427, 447, 440 & 506 IPC registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal and all proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto on the ground that no offence is made out against the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners contends that as per the allegations in the FIR registered against the petitioners, there was a mutual exchange deed between the parties on 19.7.1989 according to which respondent No.2-complainant was given Banjar land comprising Rectangle No.39, Killa Nos. 3(8-0), 8(8-0), 13 (5-10), Rect.No.25, Killa Nos.13 Min (1-6), 23 (8-0) and 18 (8-0). It has been stated in the FIR that possession of the Crl.Misc.No.M-30988 of 2008 -2- above-mentioned land was handed over to the complainant. On 4.6.2008, the petitioners along with 20/25 persons came at the spot on tractors, armed with weapons and forcibly started cultivating the land. When the complainant asked them not to do so, they aimed a gun towards him but he saved his life and ran away. All the above accused then destroyed the crop of the complainant by ploughing the land with a tractor due to which he suffered a loss of about Rs.1 ½ lacs. Counsel contends that the said FIR is totally false. The land which has been mentioned above in the FIR has all through been in possession of the petitioners and for this factual position, he relies upon the jamabandies for the years 1966-67, 1971-72, 1976-77, 1981- 82, 1986-87, 1996-97 and 2006-07 (attached as Annexure P-1 to P-7 respectively) wherein exclusive possession of Mohinder Singh-petitioner No.1 and his sons is recorded over the land in question since last 16 years till date. Even in the Khasra Girdawaries, their possession over the land in question has been shown and in this regard, copies of Khasra Girdawaries with effect from 13.10.1997 upto 2008 have been placed on record as Annexures P-8 and P-9 respectively. Counsel, on this basis, contends that the allegations as contained in the FIR are totally bereft of any truth and the FIR has only been got recorded by the complainant-respondent No.2 with an intention to harass the petitioners which amounts to misuse of process of law. Further contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that complainant-respondent No.2 had filed a civil suit against the petitioners wherein he had sought a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the petitioners herein from selling/transferring the land along with Khal and Rasta. The said suit was filed on 6.5.2008 which came up for hearing on Crl.Misc.No.M-30988 of 2008 -3- 13.6.2008. After notice and on hearing the arguments on the injunction application, the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Karnal, vide order dated 13.6.2008 (Annexure P-11) allowed the petitioners to sell their share in the suit property. Counsel further submits that the Naib Tehsildar, Nissing (Karnal) was also given liberty to execute or register the sale deed in question. Relying upon the civil suit, counsel contends that the incident which is alleged to be the cause for lodging the FIR against the petitioners is dated 4.6.2008. In the said civil suit, no mention of such an incident having taken place has been made. He, on this basis, contends that the FIR is totally based on false facts which cannot be allowed to sustain as this would amount to misuse of process of law and thus, the same deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, counsel for the State and the complainant contend that after investigation, challan has been presented against the petitioners and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana but no reply has been preferred by the complainant-respondent No.2. In the reply preferred by the State, the factum of the petitioners being in exclusive possession on the basis of the Jamabandies Annexure P-1 to P-7 and the Khasra Girdawaries Annexures P-8 and P-9 has not been disputed nor has the counsel for the complainant disputed these documents. However, it is the contention of the counsel for the complainant that the petitioners have, on the basis of the exchange deed which finds mention in the FIR (Annexure P-14), handed over the possession to the complainant and, therefore, the facts as asserted in the FIR are correct. He further contends Crl.Misc.No.M-30988 of 2008 -4- that the police upon investigation has also found the FIR to be genuine and, therefore, a challan has been presented before the Court where the trial is proceeding. The filing of the civil suit, copy whereof is Annexure P-10 and the order dated 13.6.2008 Annexure P-11 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Karnal has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondents. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The documents which have been placed on record by the petitioners i.e. the jamabandies for the year 1996-97 till 2006-07 and the Khasra Girdawaries with effect from 13.10.1997 till 2008 (Annexure P-8 and P-9) having not been disputed by the complainant-respondent No.2, the exclusive possession of the petitioners on the land in question stands established. The continuous revenue records leave no manner of doubt with regard to the possession of the petitioners. The mutual consent exchange which respondent No.2-complainant is claiming, is of the year 19.7.1989. Had the said exchange been there or had been acted upon by the parties, the subsequent revenue records would have clearly reflected the same. In this view of the matter, the mutual exchange alleged to have taken place on 19.7.1989 cannot be accepted. Further, the alleged incident which is the basis for getting the FIR registered is dated 4.6.2008 whereas the civil suit is dated 5.5.2008 (Annexure P-10) and as per the date of its institution as mentioned in the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Karnal dated 13.6.2008 (Annexure P-11) is 6.5.2008. In the said civil suit, not even a single word has been mentioned with regard to the alleged incident which had taken place on 4.6.2008. Had the said incident actually taken place, the Crl.Misc.No.M-30988 of 2008 -5- plaintiff would have certainly made a mention of it in his suit for permanent injunction (Annexure P-10) which he filed on 6.5.2008. This clearly shows that the FIR has been got registered as an afterthought so as to put pressure on the petitioners. It would not be out of way to mention here that the FIR registered on the basis of an application moved by complainant-respondent No.2 is dated 23.9.2008. That apart, the order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Karnal (Annexure P-11) shows that the petitioners were given liberty to sell their share in the suit property and in pursuance thereto, a sale deed was registered on 8.9.2008 and mutation No.650 dated 30.7.2008 (Annexure P-12) was also sanctioned on the basis of the said sale deed Annexure P-13. All this goes to show that respondent No.2-complainant was never in exclusive possession of the land in question whereas the petitioners were in possession of the land. A perusal of the jamabandies clearly establishes that the possession of the land in question was exclusively with the petitioners and not with respondent No.2- complainant. That being so, no case as alleged in the FIR under Sections 427, 447, 440, 506 IPC is made out against the petitioners. In view of the above, the present petition deserves to be allowed as no offence is made out in the light of the documentary evidence so placed on record which has not been disputed by the respondents. As is apparent, the factual matrix of the matter clearly demonstrates that the FIR which has come into existence is clearly an abuse of process of law and such misuse cannot be permitted to be perpetuated and this Court would not allow the same under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent an abuse of process of any Court or Crl.Misc.No.M-30988 of 2008 -6- otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Present is a case where this Court is of the opinion that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. need to be exercised. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.No.245 dated 23.9.2008 under Section 427, 447, 440 & 506 IPC registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal (Annexure P-14) and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto are hereby quashed. September 07, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters - Yes/No