Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satyanand Bhagat vs Paramjit Singh Kang on 24 January, 2018
Author: Arvind Singh Sangwan
Bench: Arvind Singh Sangwan
CRM-M No.14046 of 2015(O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.14046 of 2015(O&M)
Date of decision: 24.01.2018.
Satyanand Bhagat ...Petitioner
Versus
Paramjit Singh Kang ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate
for the non-applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Jatinderpal Singh, Advocate
for the applicant-respondent.
*****
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL)
CRM-7933 of 2016 Prayer in this application is for placing on record the reply by way of affidavit along with Annexures R-1 to Annexures R-4 on behalf of the respondent.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Reply along with Annexures R-1 to Anexures R-4 are taken on record. CRM-M No.14046 of 2015
Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 03.03.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Appellate Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib as well as the order dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malout, dismissing the application of the petitioner for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the respondent.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Malout against the respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner, who was plaintiff, filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 04-02-2018 16:28:03 ::: CRM-M No.14046 of 2015(O&M) - 2- permission to prosecute the respondent-defendant for giving a wrong statement in the Court.
It is further pleaded by the petitioner that on 07.01.2013, the respondent filed a petition before the Canal Officer, Abohar for restoration of a watercourse and in fact, no such petition was ever filed by the respondent against the petitioner and therefore, the aforesaid statement dated 07.01.2013 is a false statement and accordingly, it was prayed that for making a false statement, the respondent be prosecuted in accordance with the provisions under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
The trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the application observing that as per the statement dated 07.01.2013, the defendant has undertaken that he will not demolish or obstruct the land of the petitioner except in due course of law and will be bound by orders passed by the Divisional Canal Officer. It was also held by the trial Court that an application was filed before the Canal Authorities and therefore, no case for prosecuting the respondent-defendant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is made out.
The petitioner, thereafter, filed a civil miscellaneous appeal before the Additional District Judge and the same was also dismissed, vide impugned order dated 03.03.2015. The appeal was dismissed on merits as well as on the point of it, being barred by time.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and his father are owner of some agriculture land and the respondent was trying to interfere in their possession by carving out a watercourse in the land owned by the petitioner and his father.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the father of the petitioner filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondent 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 04-02-2018 16:28:04 ::: CRM-M No.14046 of 2015(O&M) - 3- praying for decree to restrain them from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff and from digging /carving out a watercourse in the land in dispute and the respondents suffered a statement dated 07.01.2013 (Annexure P-1). Since the entire claim of the petitioner revolves around this statement, the same is reproduced below:-
" Statement of Paramjit Singh S/o Hardial Singh aged about 56 years Defendant. On S.A. Stated that neither I will interfere in the land of the plaintiffs forcibly nor I will dig out the watercourse forcibly and in an illegal manner. My case with regard to the watercourse is pending with the Divisional Canal Officer, Abohar / Canal Department which I have filed against the plaintiffs. I shall act according to the orders of the department.
Sd/-
C.J. (JD) MLT.
07.01.2013 RO & AC Sd/- Paramjit Singh"
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has in fact filed no petition before the Canal Authorities against him and has made a false statement before the Civil Court and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 340 Cr.P.C. are made out. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the application filed by the respondent before the Canal Authorities is against Vijay, Anil and Moti sons of Surinder Mohan (the plaintiff before the Civil Court) and it is alleged that they have demolished the watercourse and the name of the petitioner is not Moti which in fact the name of his other brother.
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was filed in order to settle personal vendetta as the respondent, has got an FIR No.119, dated 29.12.2012 registered under Sections 379, 427, 120-B, 148 and 149 IPC read with Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 in the Police Station 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 04-02-2018 16:28:04 ::: CRM-M No.14046 of 2015(O&M) - 4- Kabarwala, District Sri Muktsar Sahib against the petitioner as well as his brother and nephews. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that in fact in the statement dated 07.01.2013, no mis-statement was made and has relied upon the application dated 19.11.2012 filed before the Divisional Canal Officer regarding restoration of the demolished watercourse against sons of plaintiff - Surinder Mohan. Counsel for the respondent has further relied upon an order dated 27.09.2013, vide which, the Superintending Canal Officer, Ferozepur, has remanded back the case between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent, thus submitted that the matter is sub- judice. He further relied upon the order dated 31.03.2015 (Annexure R-4) passed in CWP No.27613 of 2013 filed by the respondents against the petitioner and his brothers, in which, the following directions have been given:-
"Accordingly, the order dated 27.09.2013 (Annexure P-10) is hereby quashed and the parties are directed to appear before the Superintending Canal Officer on 04.05.2015, who will re-examine the matter after going through the orders passed by the DCO and the original application made by the petitioner wherein the details of the area have been mentioned by him.
Keeping in view the fact that the water course A-B-C has been demolished and there is no independent alternate source of irrigation available to the petitioner, needful shall be done within 6 weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order 31.03.2015 (Jitendra Chauhan) Judge"
Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2017(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 981, State of Goa Vs. Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a case where an accused has resiled 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 04-02-2018 16:28:04 ::: CRM-M No.14046 of 2015(O&M) - 5- from his earlier statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it cannot be held that the same will attract the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. as it is only for the Court to form an opinion before proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and it is open for the Court to hold whether there is necessity to hold a preliminary inquiry or not.
After hearing counsel for the parties, I find no force in the present petition. Both the Courts have recorded a finding of fact that there is no mis- statement made by the respondent on 07.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) as an application was filed before the Canal Authorities on 19.11.2012 (R-2) and the parties are litigating regarding their rights over the disputed watercourse and this Court, vide judgment dated 31.03.2015 has decided the said petition. Therefore, no case is made out for proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I find no force in the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner as on a bare perusal of the statement dated 07.01.2013, the respondent- defendant in the civil suit has only stated that he will not interfere in the land of the plaintiff forcibly and shall act according to the orders of Canal Department.
In view of the same, I find no merit in the present petition as no case is made out to proceed against the respondent under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and the same is dismissed.
(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
24.01.2018
Hemlata
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 04-02-2018 16:28:04 :::