Crl. Misc. No. M-33708 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-33708 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.8.2011. Raj Kumar Kaura and another ........Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. Ms. Monika Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 148 dated 09.07.2010, under Sections 420, 421, 423, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana (Rural) and further proceedings arising therefrom. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant in his complaint had levelled allegations that the shop in question had been sold by the petitioners alleging themselves to be natural and legal heirs of their father Girdhari Lal. Sudhir Kumar was brother of the petitioners and he had not given any power of attorney in favour of the petitioners to sell his Crl. Misc. No. M-33708 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - share. Girdhari Lal had not executed any will qua the suit property in favour of the petitioners. Girdhari Lal had died on 07.4.1995. The petitioners, in connivance with the officials, had executed the sale deed qua the share of their brother also. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the FIR in question was liable to be quashed as respondent No.2-complainant was not related to the petitioners. The complainant had no concern with the suit property. In fact, Sudhir Kumar could be said to be an aggrieved person but he had not filed any complaint. The FIR in question had been lodged just to harass the petitioners. Learned state counsel and the counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have submitted that the offence committed by the petitioners was serious in nature. The complainant was a social worker and had lodged the complaint on coming to know about the offence committed by the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The present case is an example of total abuse of process of law. The prosecution case is that the petitioners have executed the sale deed qua the property in dispute with regard to their share as well as the share of their brother Sudhir Kumar without any authority. In such circumstances, the aggrieved person can be said to be Sudhir Kumar whose share has been allegedly sold by the petitioners. Sudhir Kumar has not filed any complaint against the petitioners qua sale of his share by them. The respondent No.2, who has no concern with the suit property, Crl. Misc. No. M-33708 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - has lodged the complaint against the petitioners. The criminal proceedings cannot be launched by a person to settle his own personal grudge. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 148 dated 09.07.2010, under Sections 420, 421, 423, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana (Rural), and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 29, 2011 Gurpreet