CRM No. M-2819 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-2819 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 19, 2011 Kuldeep Singh son of Ranjit Singh and another .... PETITIONERS Vs. State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No. 39 dated 11.03.2008 under Sections 467, 419, 471, 420, 120-B, 465 IPC, Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The facts are that Jabru Singh, father of complainant-Beant Singh along with Jagga Singh were owners in possession of the land CRM No. M-2819 of 2010 2 measuring 68 Kanal 13 Marla in equal shares. A sale deed was executed by Jagga Singh in favour of Kuldeep Singh-petitioner No. 1 on 27.07.2006. A suit was preferred by Jabru Singh, father of the complainant by filing a suit for declaration on 01.09.2006, which was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for ad-interim injunction. Apart from challenging the sale deed, a declaration was sought by Jabru Singh to the effect that he has become the owner in possession of the suit land, as detailed in the head note which is 68 Kanal and 13 Marla, by lapse of time. The application was contested by the respondents, namely, Jagga Singh son of Pakhar Singh as also petitioner No. 1-Kuldeep Singh, who was defendant No. 2. Before the Civil Court, Jagga Singh filed a written statement, wherein, apart from taking the preliminary objection, he has admitted the fact that he has agreed to sell his half share of 68 Kanal 13 Marla in favour of Kuldeep Singh-defendant No. 2 petitioner No. 1 herein vide agreement dated 13.12.2005. A dispute arose between Jagga Singh and Kuldeep Singh and a suit for specific performance was filed by Kuldeep Singh, which ultimately was compromised and on the basis of the compromise, the sale deed was executed qua his share i.e. one half of the total land by Jagga Singh in favour of Kuldeep Singh dated 27.07.2006. Petitioner No. 1-Kuldeep Singh took a similar stand. On considering the pleadings of the parties and on hearing the counsel for them, Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ferozepur vide order dated 04.10.2007 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by Jabru Singh. It was further observed in the said order that as the plaintiff therein had produced jamabandies for the years 1982-83, 1993-94 and 1997-98, ownership prima-facie on adverse possession, as was claimed by the plaintiff, could not be said to have been established. CRM No. M-2819 of 2010 3 Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by Jabru Singh, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 02.06.2009 (Annexure P-3). The suit, as such, is pending before the trial Court. It so happened that Beant Singh, who is complainant and son of Jabru Singh, got registered an FIR against the petitioners and Jagga Singh, which was registered as FIR No. 39 dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure P- 1), wherein he alleged that Jagga Singh son of Hazara Singh had appeared as owner of the property instead of Jagga Singh son of Pakhar Singh, who is the real owner of the half share of the land, of which the remaining half is the ownership of the father of the complainant, namely, Jabru Singh. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the sale deed dated 27.07.2006 was a forged document and has been got registered by impersonation in favour of Kuldeep Singh-petitioner No. 1, of which Mohinder Singh (petitioner No. 2) was a marginal witness. It was further stated therein that Banta Singh, Lamberdar, who was an attesting witness when came to know about this fact, had given an affidavit stating that the photo does not pertain to Jagga Singh son of Pakhar Singh on the registry and thereafter, challan was presented on 03.12.2009 against all the four accused, namely, Jagga Singh son of Hazara Singh, Kuldeep Singh son of Ranjit Singh-petitioner No. 1, Mohinder Singh son of Dalip Singh-petitioner No. 2 and Banta Singh, Lamberdar. It is at this stage that the present petition was filed by the petitioners Kuldeep Singh and Mohinder Singh for quashing of the FIR registered against them and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the land belongs to Jabru Singh, who has chosen not to file any criminal complaint against the CRM No. M-2819 of 2010 4 petitioners as he was well aware that it was a civil dispute, for which he had taken recourse to filing a suit for declaration and he had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for ad-interim injunction. Having failed in his endeavour to get an ad-interim injunction in his favour as the said application was dismissed on 04.10.2007 by the trial Court and the present FIR was got registered by Beant Singh-complainant, who is the son of Jabru Singh, by giving it the shape of a criminal proceeding being fully aware that Jagga Singh had filed a written statement before the trial Court admitting that he had initially entered into an agreement to sell on 13.12.2005 qua his share with Kuldeep Singh and thereafter, during the pendency of the suit for specific performance, on the basis of the compromise, got executed the sale deed qua his share in the joint holding through sale deed dated 27.07.2006, the present FIR is thus, a misuse of process of law and a civil dispute has been intended to be given a criminal shape. His further contention is that the appeal preferred by the father of the complainant Jabru Singh against order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the trial Court also stands dismissed vide order dated 02.06.2009 further fortifying the fact that prima-facie no truth has been found in the suit filed by the father of the complainant. He, accordingly, prays for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant submits that since Beant Singh-complainant is in joint possession with his father Jabru Singh, although his father is the owner of the share of the property and in possession thereof, still he has a right to agitate his claim and accordingly, has registered the present FIR against the petitioners and others for impersonation and forgery, which has been done by them by sale of the property, which the father of the petitioner is claiming to be the owner on CRM No. M-2819 of 2010 5 the basis of adverse possession. He further contends that challan has already been presented and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court at this stage to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings arising therefrom. However, the filing of the suit by the father of the complainant Jabru Singh and order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for ad-interim injunction and the dismissal of the appeal by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur dated 02.06.2009 has not been disputed by him. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The undisputed facts speak for itself. The dispute is purely a dispute of civil nature as is apparent from the suit filed by the father of the complainant Jabru Singh, wherein he is praying for declaration to the effect that he has become the owner in possession of the suit land by lapse of time and the sale deed dated 27.07.2006 executed by Jagga Singh son of Pakhar Singh in favour of Kuldeep Singh , who are defendants No. 1 and 2 in the suit, which is illegal, wrong and without consideration and ineffective of the rights of the plaintiff. In the suit, Jagga Singh has put in appearance and has filed the written statement where he has admitted the execution of the sale deed dated 27.07.2006 in favour of Kuldeep Singh. In the light of the admission by Jagga Singh son of Pakhar Singh, wherein he has stated that he had executed the sale deed and has also sold his share, the present FIR, which is subsequent to the passing of order dated 04.10.2007 by the Additional Civil Judge Sr. Divn., Ferozepur, can be said to be firstly, an afterthought and with an intention to put undue pressure on petitioner No 1 as also Jagga Singh and secondly, the father having failed in his civil pursuit, the son has taken over him the responsibility to proceed CRM No. M-2819 of 2010 6 against the petitioners in a civil matter by giving it a shape of criminal proceeding, which cannot be permitted especially when, the complainant does not have any right on the property and he being the son of Jabru Singh, was well aware of the statement made by Jagga Singh before the trial Court in his written statement. This Court has no hesitation in the light of the facts, which have been stated above, to hold that this is a purely civil dispute, which has been given a shape of a criminal case by filing the present FIR by the complainant. The process of law is not meant to circumvent or to harass somebody or put undue pressure but is to guard and protect the innocent. The present FIR is a process, which has been initiated with a mala-fide intention and cannot, thus, be permitted to continue where civil dispute has been made a criminal dispute. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 39 dated 11.03.2008 under Sections 467, 419, 471, 420, 120-B, 465 IPC, Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Any observations made herein above shall not have any bearing on the civil suit pending, which has been filed by Jabru Singh, father of Beant Singh-complainant. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) October 19, 2011 JUDGE pj