Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vidhi Chand Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 3 September, 2008
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc.32790-M of 2007
DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 3, 2008
VIDHI CHAND ETC. ....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. AK Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks quashing of FIR No.21 dated 6.4.2007 under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Raipur Rani, District Panchkula (Annexure P-
7).
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the consolidation proceedings were finalized in the year 1956-57, the revenue record indicated the ownership and possession of petitioners No.1 to 161. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the revenue record that has been placed on the record. Particular reference has Criminal Misc.32790-M of 2007 2 been made to the Jamabandis for the years 1997-1998 and 2002-03. It has been asserted that since entries have been made in the revenue record in regard to inheritance, the rights of the petitioners as owners in possession, cannot possibly be disputed.
It seems that petitioners No.162 and 163 had entered into agreements to purchase 72 acres 4 kanals of land from petitioners No.1 to
161. For brevity sake, one of the agreements has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. It seems that General Power of Attorney was given by petitioners No.1 to 161 in favour of petitioners No.162 and 163, for finalising the execution of sale deed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Annexure P-6, wherein various details of owners/proprietors, purchasers and money transacted, have been given.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that some of the petitioners had filed an application under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act (for short 'the Act'), as applicable to the State of Haryana, seeking declaration of their rights. The application was filed in the year 2004. Subsequently, the agreements to sell were executed in May, 2006 and, therefore, as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the proceedings were not pursued and the same were dismissed in default. The specific issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in this regard, is that because the application under Section 13-A of the Act was dismissed, the FIR has been lodged and for no other reason.
It has been brought out that after dismissal of the application Criminal Misc.32790-M of 2007 3 in default, an application for restoration was filed, which was allowed. Subsequently, however, one Kharaiti Lal filed an application that he did not want to pursue the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the case of the other applicants was not considered and the entire matter was dismissed. Be that as it may, the appeal on the issue is pending adjudication before the authorities under the Act.
In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that an owner cannot be a tress-passer. The issue in regard to declaration of title is pending adjudication before the authorities and, therefore, the investigation should not proceed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the factum of possession of the petitioners is disputed. It was the Gram Panchayat that was in possession and, therefore, the FIR has been lodged indicating criminal tress-pass. It has also been pointed out that it would only be after investigation that the other facets of offences would come into picture. The investigation is going on. It is the statutory right of the Investigating Agency to investigate under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation cannot be thwarted, delayed or deferred. The issues raised would be questions of evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw the petition to enable the petitioners to take all the peas taken in this petition before the appropriate forum, at the appropriate stage.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
I find that the FIR was lodged on 6.4.2007. Till date, the final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, has not been Criminal Misc.32790-M of 2007 4 submitted. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the Investigating Agency to conclude the investigation expeditiously, preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
September 3, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE