IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 20324 of 2010 Date of decision : 14.12.2011. Shamsher Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. AG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 67 dated 25.05.2010 registered against him under Sections 448 and 506 IPC at Police Station Line Par, Bahadurgarh. The petitioner pleads quashing of the FIR only on the ground that best reading of the same would not reveal commission of any offence much less offences of house tresspass or other offences as alleged. This FIR was registered against the petitioner on the basis of communication addressed to SSP, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. It would be of benefit to reproduce entire communication on the basis of which this FIR has been registered. This reads as under:- Subject : Recovery of possession of land and money Crl. Misc. No. M- 20324 of 2010 -2- from Mahalaxmi Ice factory, Parnala Road, Bahadurgarh. Sir, I am having 50% share in Maha Laxmi Ice Factory whose deed is prepared. The partner Shamsher son of Moji Ram had taken forcible possession and he gives threat to put us to death. The factory deed is in his possession and in the factory, he used to keep criminal type of persons and there is liability of ` 5 lakhs on him but he is not paying the same to me. I do not want to continue partnership with him. Please my share and possession in the factory land be given to me. I shall be grateful to you. Photocopy of the registry of the land is annexed with the application. Thanking you.” The petitioner and the complainant concededly are having 50% share in the ice factory. The allegation, as can be made, is that the petitioner has taken forcible possession of the factory. It is also urged that the petitioner has advanced threat of death to the complainant. The petitioner and the complainant are partners. It appears to be a case of dispute between partners. If the petitioner being partner has entered into factory, he cannot be alleged to have trespassed into the factory. Being a partner, he would have right to enter the factory. The allegation that he has taken forcible possession cannot mean much as he being partner is entitled to be remain in possession of the factory. It apparently is only a civil dispute. This civil dispute is given a colour of criminality and the process of criminal law is being invoked and set in notice against the Crl. Misc. No. M- 20324 of 2010 -3- petitioner. This may indicate abuse of the process of law. As are the allegations, there is no possibility of any further evidence coming on record even during investigation. If the complainant has any grievance against being denied his share, proper remedy for him is to approach the civil Court, which can adequately safeguard his interest. The allegation made in the FIR do not reveal any offence. It is also pointed out by the State counsel that during investigation it is revealed that the complainant has withdrawn from the partnership and has demanded his share from the petitioner. One of the ground as per the law laid down in State of Haryana versus Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, for quashing of the FIR is when the allegation do not reveal any offence. In my view, case is made for quashing this FIR as it does not reveal any offence. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. FIR No. 67 dated 25.05.2010 registered against the petitioner under Sections 448 and 506 IPC at Police Station Line Par, Bahadurgarh and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. December 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE