Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rai Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 April, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
Crl. Misc. No. M-14812 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-14812 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : April 11, 2013
Rai Singh and others .... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. S. S. Khurana, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana
for respondent no. 1.
Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate
for respondent no. 2.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Crl. Misc. No. 21418 of 2013 :
Allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. 21419 of 2013 :
Application is allowed and Annexures P-5 and P-6 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case :Crl. Misc. No. M-14812 of 2012 (O&M) 2
Accused Rai Singh and four others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No.118 dated 26.03.2012 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 447 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code (in short - IPC), registered at Police Station Model Town, District Rewari.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, respondent no.2- complainant has purchased four kanals land from Ram Chander, vide sale deed dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure P-6) and is owner in possession thereof, but the petitioners have forcibly harvested and taken away standing crop of respondent no.2-complainant.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner no.1, who is father of petitioners no.2 and 3 and father-in-law of petitioners no.4 and 5, is co-sharer in the land in question along with his brother, and respondent no.2 has purchased only share in the land and not any specific portion thereof and his vendor Ram Chander, who was also co-sharer, was also not in exclusive possession of any part of the joint land, and therefore, no offence, as alleged, has been committed by the petitioners. It was also pointed out that Civil Court has declined to grant temporary injunction to the complainant, vide order dated 09.01.2012 (Annexure P-3) because complainant is not in exclusive possession of the land in question. Crl. Misc. No. M-14812 of 2012 (O&M) 3
On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.2-complainant contended that specific portion measuring four kanals out of land of Killa No.10//22 was sold to the complainant and possession thereof was also delivered to him, but the petitioners have taken away standing crop of the complainant from the said land and thus, committed the offence mentioned in the FIR.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. On pointed inquiry, counsel for respondent no.2 failed to substantiate his contention from the contents of the sale deed (Annexure P-
6) executed in his favour. On the contrary, the said sale deed falsifies the version of the complainant because according to the sale deed, only half share in the eight kanals land of Killa No.10//22 was sold by Ram Chander to the complainant. No specific portion of the said land has been mentioned in the sale deed. Thus, it cannot be said that complainant came in possession of any specific portion of land in question.
In addition to the aforesaid, jamabandi (Annexure P-5) reveals that Ram Chander himself was not in exclusive possession of any part of the joint land including the land in question. On the contrary, all the co-sharers are recorded to be in joint possession of the joint land. Consequently, Ram Chander vendor himself not being in exclusive possession of any part of the joint land, could not have delivered possession of any specific portion of the Crl. Misc. No. M-14812 of 2012 (O&M) 4 joint land to the complainant.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that neither the complainant nor his vendor was in exclusive possession of the disputed land and rather petitioner no.1, who is father and father-in-law of remaining petitioners, is also co-sharer in joint possession of disputed land and other joint land. Consequently, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed offence under Sections 447 and 188 IPC.
It is thus manifest that prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offence in the impugned FIR would, therefore, be gross abuse of process of Court resulting in miscarriage of justice. This court, not only has inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but is also under duty to prevent such abuse of process of Court and miscarriage of justice.
As a necessary consequence, the instant petition is allowed. Impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. However, nothing in this order shall have any bearing on merits of the civil litigation between the parties.
April 11, 2013 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE