In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-8884 of 2011 ..... Date of decision:30.3.2011 Amir .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Deol, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ...... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 12.2.2011 for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 506 and 34 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Kapil son of Parhlad Rai Gupta. It is alleged by the complainant-Kapil that on 12.2.2011 at about 8.30 a.m. he and the daughter of his aunt, namely, Palvi were present at their home and the door was bolted from inside. Suddenly four persons by jumping the wall entered their house and started breaking the door. They also broke the latches of the door by pushing the door of the room in which the complainants were present. The said persons after coming inside the room gave a beating to the complainant and his cousin brother. They broke the door and latches of the lobby. Thereafter, they went to the other rooms and broke the lock and took the articles from there. Out of the four persons who had come, the complainant knew Amir Cr. Misc. No.M-8884 of 2011 [2] (petitioner) against whom a case regarding possession of the house was pending. He hurled blows on the chest and neck of the complainant and strangulated his neck. Then sister of the complainant tried to rescue him upon which they gave her also a beating. They said that if any action was taken they would kill him. The petitioner, it is submitted, is a tenant of the complainant’s father, namely, Parhlad Rai Gupta who wants the petitioner to vacate and leave his house and that too forcibly. The complainant and his father, it is alleged, are lodging complaints one after the other. The complainant, it is submitted, is residing in a different house at Ahmedabad (Gujarat). The petitioner had also filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Hisar. A Local Commissioner was appointed by the civil Court and his report dated 3.2.2011 (Annexure-P.2) has been placed on record. Four days earlier to the lodging of the FIR, the father of the complainant, namely, Parhlad Rai Gupta had lodged FIR No.102 dated 8.2.2011 (Annexure-P.3) at Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar for the offences under Sections 452, 448 and 34 IPC against the petitioner in which the Police came to the conclusion that no offence of theft had been committed. Proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. were also initiated. In response, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Umed Singh, Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar, has submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is that of a landlord and a tenant and, therefore, the FIR has been registered. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are admittedly simple Cr. Misc. No.M-8884 of 2011 [3] in nature. The dispute is between a landlord and a tenant and the question as to who is in possession of the house is to be considered and gone into by the Civil Court and this aspect is not to be gone into while considering the bail application whether the petitioner or the complainant is in possession of the house. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has asserted that the petitioner is in possession of the house and the complainant is residing in Ahmedabad, however, it would be inappropriate to determine the said aspect as regards the possession the house and the civil Court would determine the same on the basis of evidence and material placed before it. In any case, keeping in view the fact that the dispute is that of a landlord and a tenant, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner in the event of his arrest is admitted to bail. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called and shall abide the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. March 30, 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*