IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. 147 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 1, 2010 VINOD KUMAR & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for bail in FIR No.394 dated 7.12.2009 under Sections 323, 307, 427, 506, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Kunjpura, District Karnal. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were litigating against one Ms.Devi Bai, who was owner of the property. The suit of the petitioners was dismissed. The petitioners carried an appeal, whereupon order dated 1.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) was passed. Criminal Misc. No. 147 -M of 2010 2 The parties were directed to maintain status quo. The attention of the court has been drawn towards order 2.12.2009 (Annexure P-3) to say that Paramjit Singh (complainant of the FIR), without being a party to the lis, gave a statement that he and his mother-Ms.Roshni Devi are purchasing the suit property. The stay order was vacated on the same day i.e. 2.12.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that since the complainant was not a party to the lis, therefore, in view of the locus standi of the said person, a revision was carried to this Court, whereupon order dated 8.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) was passed while dealing with CR 7235 of 2009 (Vinod Kumar and another v. Devi Bai and others). Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were in possession. It was the complainant side which wanted to take forcible possession, having indulged in purchase of disputed property. Learned counsel for the complainant has drawn the attention of the court towards the fact that Paramjit Singh and his mother- Ms.Roshni Devi purchased the property vide sale deed executed on 3.12.2009. Recital in the sale deed notices possession of complainant- Paramjit Singh and his mother. Learned counsel for the complainant further states that the petitioners were the aggressors and wanted to take forcible possession of the property. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has drawn the attention of the court towards the offending and criminal acts of the petitioners, as given out in the FIR. Learned counsel for the respondent- Criminal Misc. No. 147 -M of 2010 3 State has also pointed out that petitioner No.1/Vinod Kumar is of criminal nature in so much as FIR No.310 dated 19.8.2009 under Sections 332, 353, 186, 294, 506, Indian Penal Code, was lodged in Police Station, Kunjpura, District Karnal, when Block Development and Panchayat Officer, etc., had gone to give possession of 100 square yards plots to Below Poverty Line families. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Order dated 8.12.2009 (Annexure P-5), passed by this Court in CR 7235 of 2009, indicates that only alienation of the property had been stayed. There is no document to indicate that the petitioners were in possession of the property. So far as the incident itself is concerned, petitioner No.1- Vinod Kumar is stated to be armed with a spade and petitioner No.2- Udham Singh alias Udhma with a Danda. Vinod Kumar gave a blow with the spade/kassi on the head of the complainant with the intention to kill, which hit on the left side of the head, while Udham Singh alias Udhma gave a Danda blow, which hit elbow of the right hand of the complainant. As per the allegations in the FIR, the vehicle of the complainant was also intentionally damaged in the incident. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, however, taking into account the fact that there is no document to, prima facie, indicate possession of the petitioners; the manner in which the incident took place; the fact that both the petitioners gave injuries to the complainant and also damaged his car; the gravity of the offence does not Criminal Misc. No. 147 -M of 2010 4 entitle the petitioners to the relief under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. February 1, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?