IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. 25347-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 27, 2010 PURSHOTAM SAINI & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. PS Sikand, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of FIR No.107 dated 27.3.2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 448, 506, 511, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The facts are intricate, as given out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners, it seems, purchased a piece of land from one Tarlok Singh in the year 2006. Vijay Kumar, complainant/respondent No.2 claims to be the tenant on the property. Further claim is that earlier to Criminal Misc. No. 25347-M of 2008 2 complainant/respondent No.2, his father Dharambir was a tenant on the property. The facts, as given out, are that Tarlok Singh (predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners) entered into an agreement to sell the property on 21.12.1984 with Dharambir, father of complainant/respondent No.2. Since the sale deed was not executed in terms of the agreement, said Dharambir brought a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 21.12.1984. After litigation running into 12 years, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India adjudicated in favour of Tarlok Singh, vide judgment placed on record as Annexure P-4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in the following terms:- “...... We find force in the stand of appellant. We think that parties had, by agreement, determined the date for performance of the contract. Thereby limitation began to run from April 6, 1986. Suit merely for injunction laid on December 23, 1987 would not be of any avail nor the limitation began to run from that date. Suit for perpetual injunction is different from suit for specific performance. The suit for specific performance in fact was claimed by way of amendment application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC on September 12, 1979. It will operate only on the application being ordered. Since the amendment was ordered on August 25, 1989 the crucial date would be the date on which the amendment was ordered by which date, admittedly, the suit is barred by limitation. The courts below, therefore, Criminal Misc. No. 25347-M of 2008 3 were not right in decreeing the suit. ......” Under the circumstances, Dharambir could not have enforced the agreement to sell. It seems that, in the meanwhile, sale deed had been executed. Litigation for cancellation of the sale deed was brought. Since the agreement to sell itself could not be enforced through a suit for specific performance, the sale deed was cancelled. Under the above circumstances, Dharambir continued to claim himself to be in possession of the land as a tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. It seems that complainant/respondent No.2 lodged FIR No.592 dated 25.8.1997 against Surjit Singh son of Tarlok Singh and three others, alleging therein that he was owner of Sabharwal Rice Mills. He was in possession of a piece of land. The land was leased to complainant/respondent No.2 by Tarlok Singh, etc. When complainant/respondent No.2 had gone to Delhi, he was informed that an attempt had been made by the accused to take forcible possession of the land. They had, however, been stopped by the workers working for complainant/respondent No.2. The accused had also given a threat to take forcible possession on getting a chance. Challan was filed and the accused therein were tried. The trial Court, vide judgment (Annexure P- 5), in regard to possession, has concluded in the following terms:- “....... Regarding the possession PW-6 has clearly deposed that the complainant could not produce any documentary proof regarding title of the land with the complainant. Thus, the prosecution could not prove any of the charges levelled Criminal Misc. No. 25347-M of 2008 4 against the accused beyond all the shadows of reasonable doubt. Even the presence of accused at the spot is doubtful. .....” Resultantly, all the accused were acquitted. It needs to be mentioned that, at this stage also, the allegation made by complainant/respondent No.2 against Surjit Singh son of Tarlok Singh i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, in regard to the same land was of criminal tress-pass. In the present FIR, it has been alleged that on the intervening night of 26/27.3.2008, the petitioners gathered bricks, sand, cement, etc. with an intention to take forcible possession as the Chowkidar and other servants of complainant/respondent No.2 had gone to their native places on the occasion of Holi. At about 9.30 a.m., complainant/respondent No.2, his brother and others were going to Delhi. While they were passing by, they saw bricks, sand and cement, etc. lying near their land. They stopped the car. They noticed that the lock of the gate had been broken open and the petitioners were demolishing the boundary wall. Further allegation is that petitioner No.1 was armed with a Gandassi, petitioner No.2 was armed with a lathi and petitioner No.3 was armed with an iron rod. Certain other persons were armed with lathis and rods. When they were stopped, complainant/respondent No.2 was told that nobody could stop them from taking possession. Injuries were caused. In the meantime, police came at the spot and on seeing the police, all the accused along with their accomplices ran away. While leaving the place, they threatened that they will take possession of 13 marlas of land, if they Criminal Misc. No. 25347-M of 2008 5 got a chance. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the FIR is nothing but a means of putting pressure on the petitioners to surrender possession of land to complainant/respondent No.2. Complainant/respondent No.2 had lost the legal battle on the civil side right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as against the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners. It has further been stated that earlier complainant/respondent No.2 had lodged an FIR against Surjit Singh son of Tarlok Singh and others with similar allegations. The said persons were acquitted. Learned counsel for complainant/respondent No.2 states that challan has already been filed and the charges have also been framed. Complainant/respondent No.2 continues to be in possession of the land as a tenant on part portion of the land and as an owner on the other part. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The sequence of events, as detailed above, indicates that Dharambir, father of complainant/respondent No.2, was a tenant under Tarlok Singh. An agreement to sell was executed which, however, could not be specifically performed in view of efflux of time. The said Dharambir lost the litigation up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Complainant/respondent No.2 lodged an FIR against Surjit Singh son of Tarlok Singh (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) with similar allegations of taking forcible possession of land. The litigation culminated in acquittal of all the accused persons. Criminal Misc. No. 25347-M of 2008 6 In the present case, the allegations are, again, in regard to taking forcible possession of the land. In my considered opinion, complainant/respondent No.2 having lost up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, is abusing the process of law and the process of court. Allegations of similar nature were earlier made in which complainant/respondent No.2 lost and the judgment indicates acquittal of the persons accused of criminal tress-pass. In view of the sequence of events and the past history, I find that continuance of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of court. Filing of the FIR and initiating proceedings is a mala fide exercise by the complainant/respondent No.2. A short cut is sought to be adopted by way of filing FIR so as to defeat the vested civil rights of the petitioners. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. FIR No.107 dated 27.3.2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 448, 506, 511, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra (Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. January 27, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?