Criminal Misc. No. M- 17444 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 17444 of 2009 Date of decision:-12.5.2011 Rajinder and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. K.S. Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for respondent No.2. RITU BAHRI J. The petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No.112 dated 23.4.2009 under Section 379 IPC, registered at Police Station Kalanur, District Rohtak (Annexure P-1). The allegation in the FIR is that on 29.3.2009 the accused had cut the crop of wheat from the fields of the complainant Smt. Savita wife of Ranbir. The dispute in the present case is with regard to the adoption deed dated 12.3.1981 by which father of the petitioner Joginder Singh was the adopted son of Brahma Nand (father of respondent No.6). A suit for declaration was filed on 10.2.1992 against Brahma Nand by sons of Joginder Singh, which was decreed in their favour on 09.5.1992. The mutation Nos.1278 and 4084 sanctioned in their favour. Brahma Nand died on 13.3.1995. Respondent No.6 is the legal heir of Brahma Nand. She has filed a civil suit on 19.7.1995 to the effect that the Criminal Misc. No. M- 17444 of 2009 -2- alleged adoption deed and the decree dated 09.5.1992 be declared null and void. This suit was dismissed on 04.2.1999. In appeal, the judgment was reversed on 22.10.2001. The Regular Second Appeal filed against this decision was dismissed by the High Court on 28.8.2002. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 09.12.2002. In the above background, respondent No.6 was declared owner in possession of the property. Affidavit has been filed by Mr. Vikas Dhankhar, Additional Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, in which it has been mentioned the petitioners started destroying the crops of respondent No.6, as a result of which FIR No.112/2009 was registered for offence under Section 379 IPC. During investigation, the petitioners have admitted the theft of crop of respondent No.6 to the tune of Rs.16,000/- in the year 2008 vide Annexures R-6 and R-7. In view of the above facts, no ground for interference at this stage in the trial in above mentioned FIR is made out. The parameters set up in State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others 1991(1) RCR (Criminal)383 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. May 12, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE