IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-45159 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 22nd April, 2009 Surinder Kaur … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the State. Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Criminal Misc. No. 20022-23 of 2009 Application is allowed. Exemption from filing certified copies of documents (Annexures P-7 and P-8) is granted. Objections along with documents (Annexures P-7 and P-8) are taken on record. Criminal Misc. No. M-45159 of 2007 Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No. 15 dated 06.02.2007 registered at Police Station City Mansa under Sections 420, 120-B IPC. In the present case, FIR was lodged by Purshotam Dass respondent No.2. The grievance of the complainant is that Surinder Kaur Criminal Misc. No. M-45159 of 2007 (O&M) got sanctioned mutation in connivance with the revenue officials and a wrong Tatima was fabricated and offence of cheating was committed. In this case, notice of motion was issued. On February 19, 2009, following order was passed: “Mr. Dhaliwal has submitted that vide two sale deeds petitioner had purchased land and became co-sharer. It has been further submitted that khata was joint and land had not been partitioned. Counsel further submitted that petitioner is not in possession of land in excess than the land purchased by the petitioner. This fact is disputed by Mr. Narwana. Validity of sale deed is not in dispute. On basis of sale deed mutation has been sanctioned. Mr. Narwana states that mutation has been sanctioned wrongly. This fact is controverted by Mr. Dhaliwal. Parties are in agreement that a Local Commissioner can be appointed. Mr. Dhaliwal has stated that if the petitioner is having excess land more than the land purchased by her, vide sale deeds, she is ready to part with that land. Whether petition is having excess land or not? Counsel states that it can be determined by the Local Commissioner. They have jointly requested that Mr. Manwinder Singh Sidhu be appointed as Local Commissioner, it has been further submitted that both the parties shall jointly pay Rs.30,000/- as fee to the Local Commissioner along with transport expenses. In view of the consensus and agreement arrived between counsel for the parties, let Mr. Manwinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate, visit the site. He can requisition the assistance of revenue authorities. Copy of the petition along with this order be handed over to Mr. Manwinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate, by the Registry. Parties shall remain bound by the statement recorded in this regard./ Mr. Narwana further submitted that if no land is in excess than the land purchased by the petitioner, then the complainant has no objection to the quashing of FIR. Case to come up for further hearing on 16.4.2009.” 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-45159 of 2007 (O&M) Local Commissioner has submitted his report. The said report has apparently gone against the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal has filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner vide Criminal Misc. No. 22022 of 2009. The objections have been taken on record. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab has stated that in the present case, FIR has been investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (challan) has been submitted and case is now fixed for framing of charge on 18th May, 2009. An attempt was made by this Court to resolve the dispute amicably between the parties as per the undertaking given by them. Petitioner is one, who is in possession of the land and the grievance of the complainant that he has been cheated, prima facie seems to be correct. However, since the trial Court is seized of the matter and the charge is to be framed by the trial Court, this Court will not make any observation. If the parties to the present petition intend to rely upon the report of the Local Commissioner, they may prove the same and examine the Local Commissioner. No interference is warranted in view of the conduct of the petitioner also. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 22, 2009 rps 3