Crl.Misc.No.M-8464 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-8464 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28 - 4 - 2009 Gurinder Singh Grewal .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.P.S.Kang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr.Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of case FIR No.190 dated 16.8.1996 registered at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings along with order dated 10.6.2006, Annexure P10 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana whereby the Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner in a cancellation report submitted by the Investigating Agency. Parties to litigation are in dispute regarding possession of Plot No.151, Transport Nagar, Ludhiana. Admittedly, this plot was allotted by Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to M/s Chinnar Road-Lines (Regd.), Head Office, New Delhi. Case of the petitioner is that this plot was sold to him by the partner of M/s Chinnar Road-Lines (Regd.), New Delhi. Crl.Misc.No.M-8464 of 2008 [2] Case of complainant Gurbachan Kaur is that her husband had paid Rs.16,500/- at the auction and he was one of the partner of M/s Chinnar Road-Lines (Regd.), New Delhi. Parties are in civil litigation regarding ownership and possession of the plot. Order of status quo regarding possession has been granted in favour of the petitioner. This Court need not dwell on the intricacies and implications of the pleadings projected in civil litigation. In narrow compass for consideration of this Court is occurrence dated 16.8.1996, both the parties allege that an attempt was made to take possession of the plot. At the instance of the petitioner, DDR No.20 dated 16.8.1996, Annexure P2 was recorded but no case was registered. Petitioner approached this Court vide Criminal Misc. No.15206-M of 1996. During the pendency of the above said petition, case FIR No.247 dated 14.10.1996, Annexure P6 was registered against respondent No.2 and police officials mentioned therein. It is stated that in this FIR, accused have been challaned and the trial is pending in the Court of Shri Yukti Goyal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. Similarly, regarding same incident, FIR No.190 dated 16.8.1996 was registered at Police Station, Division No.6, Ludhiana. In this FIR, cancellation report was submitted. On a protest petition filed by complainant-respondent No.2, same was not accepted and case was sent for re-investigation. Subsequently, vide Annexure P10, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has taken cognizance against the petitioner. In the present case, regarding the same incident two versions have come forward. Both sides are saying that other side made an attempt to take forcible possession, comitted offence of trespass and destruction of Crl.Misc.No.M-8464 of 2008 [3] the property. Accordingly, FIR No.247 dated 14.10.1996, registered at Police Station Division No.6 under Sections 448, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC and another FIR bearing No.190 dated 16.8.1996 under Sections 447, 511, 427, 379, 506, 323, 148, 149 IPC are pending. In order to avoid judicial embarrassment in two parallel proceedings, where version of one, is defence of another, it is ordered that the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana shall entrust the cases arising out of FIR No.247 dated 14.10.1996 and FIR No.190 dated 16.8.1996 to one Court. The concerned Court shall proceed with the trial of both the cases arising from above said FIRs, simultaneously but separately. With these observations, the present petition is disposed off. At this stage, Mr.P.S.Kang has stated that in the present case FIR was registered in 1996. Petitioner is facing trial for the last 13 years, therefore, his personal appearance be exempted. I find merit in this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, personal appearance of the petitioner is exempted subject to furnishing an undertaking that he shall cause appearance as and when required by the trial Court. He shall also file an undertaking that the evidence, if any, recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel shall be binding upon him. The trial Court may also incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be submitted by the petitioner. Anything said in this order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the cases. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) April 28, 2009. JUDGE RC