Punjab-Haryana High Court
Milkha Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 15 July, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl.Misc.No.M- 51164 of 2004 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl.Misc.No.M- 51164 of 2004 (O&M)
Date of decision: 15.7.2010
Milkha Singh and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. P.S.Hundal, Sr.Advocate,
Mr.Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for
Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. For short) for quashing FIR No. 67 dated 10.7.1999 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 440/ 441/ 447/427/ 506/ 148/ 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (The Act-for short), Crl.Misc.No.M- 51164 of 2004 (O&M) 2 registered at Police Station Raja Sansi District Amritsar. The prayer further is for quashing of order dated 24.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (Annexure P-3) and the order dated 17.4.2002 passed by the Suh Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala by which charges under Section 447/ 427/ 506/ 148/149 IPC were framed against the petitioners (Annexure P-2) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under:-
"I am a resident of aforesaid address. My grand father Sulakhan Singh had purchased land measuring 8 killas at Khuh Patwariyan Wala Raja Sansi in the year 1962 from Sukhraj Singh, Pukhraj Singh and Sarup Singh. We are in possession of this land since 1962. Beside Sukhraj Singh, Pukhraj Singh and Sarup Singh there were two other owners of this part of land. Sukhraj Singh, Pukhraj Singh and Sarup Singh had a dispute in the court with the other partners of this land. As per the orders of the court, the mutation regarding sanctioning of 4 killas of land was cancelled out of this 8 killas of land which was purchased by my grand father from Sukhraj Singh, Pukhraj Singh and Sarup Singh and it was sanctioned in the name of other party i.e. Rajwant Singh etc. We have been cultivating this land. My grand father had filed a suit in the court against this order which Crl.Misc.No.M- 51164 of 2004 (O&M) 3 is still pending in the court of Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh Khaira S.D.J.M., Ajnala and the next date of hearing in the same is 26.7.1999. Mohinder Singh and Gurinder Pal Singh got the sale deed of said land measuring 4 killas and the mutation of which was earlier sanctioned and cancelled from the name of my grand father, registered in their names from other party Rajwant Singh etc. I have filed a case in the court against the said registry and the next date of hearing in the same is 26.7.1999. After getting the sale deed registered, Mohinder Singh etc. in connivance with the revenue department got the mutation sanctioned in their names. Today, in the morning, they along with Kanungo and Patwari got the said registered land demarcated. After the demarcation, the Patwari and Kanungo went after fixed Burjis. Today, at about 5.30 P.M., Milkha Singh son of Inder Singh along with Rajinder Singh, Gurinder Pal Singh sons of Milkha Singh Jat, residents of Guru Ram Dass Avenue, Gumtala Road, Amritsar and 9/10 more persons came there on a tractor and started ploughing this land with the help of tractor. Jagir Singh and I had sown maize in 1-1/2 killas of land out of this demarcated land. They also destroyed the maize the height of which was hardly upto full stretch hand, in the area of half killa of land out of the said area Crl.Misc.No.M- 51164 of 2004 (O&M) 4 of 1-1/2 killas of land. They also destroyed maize in the area of 10 marlas of the other killa with the help of said tractor. They were also cultivating the remaining land with the tractors. They were armed with a gun. When I tried to stop them by coming ahead, Rajinder Singh threatened me that in case I came ahead, then they would kill me as the security proceedings were bound down. I apprehend that this land has been cultivated with the connivance of Kanungo Sohal Sahib and Tejinder Singh Patwari. I was going to the Police Station for making an information. You have met me. All of these accused have caused damage to my sown maize by cultivating it after connivance and they have also threatened to kill me also. They are also cultivating the remaining land with the tractors. I will produce the record regarding the possession of this land before your goodself, if required."
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that FIR in question is liable to be quashed as in the civil litigation, the petitioners have been found to be in possession of the land in question. He has drawn my attention to various orders on the file in this regard.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that the complainant party was in possession of the suit land and the proceedings qua the FIR were liable to continue. Crl.Misc.No.M- 51164 of 2004 (O&M) 5
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of Crl.Misc.No.M- 51164 of 2004 (O&M) 6 the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended Crl.Misc.No.M- 51164 of 2004 (O&M) 7 with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." Annexure P-4 is the sale deed executed by Bhushan Raj qua half share and Rajbir Singh, Rajdeep Singh, Gurnam Kaur and Rajdev Singh qua their half share, in favour of Gurinder Pal Singh Baath relating to 13 kanals 11 marlas of land comprised in Killa No.88//16/2(5-8)- 17 Min (5-8)-24/2 Min (2-4)-25/1(0-11) situated in village Raja Sansi, Tehsil Ajnala.
Annexure P-5 is the sale deed executed by Bhushan Raj qua half share and Rajbir Singh, Rajdeep Singh, Gurnam Kaur and Rajdev Singh qua their half share, in favour of Maninder Singh Baath qua 21 kanals of land comprised in Killa No.88//7/2 (1-5)-8 Min- (3-1)-13 (8-0)- 14/1 (2-12)- 17 Min (2-12)- 24/1 (1-0)- 24/1/1 Min Crl.Misc.No.M- 51164 of 2004 (O&M) 8 (0-14) 24/1/2 Min (1-4), 89//19/2 Min (0-12).
Annexure P-6 is the order passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate in the proceedings under Sections 145/ 146 Cr.P.C., wherein it was held as under:-
"After perusing the aforesaid circumstances, record and going through the contentions put forth in the arguments, this Court has come to the conclusion that party No.2 has purchased the total land measuring 34 kanal 11 marlas comprised in Killa No.88//16/2(5-8)- 17 Min (5-8)-24/2 Min (2-4)-25/1(0-11), 88//7/2 (1-6)-8 Min- (3-1)-13 (8-0)- 14/1 (2-12)- 17 Min (2-12)- 24/1 (1-0)- 24/1/1 Min (0-14) 24/1/2 Min (1-4), 89//19/2 Min (0-12) and they are the owners of this land without any doubt; and that their possession is also proved 2 months prior to the earlier order passed by this Court. It has also been found that party No.2 is the owner in possession in respect of the property purchased by them right from the time of purchase of this land. Party No.1 has no concern as owner in possession or as cultivator at any time in respect of this land and that this land is continuously remaining in the possession of party No.2 from the aforesaid facts it is clear that party No.2 Gurinder Pal Singh son of Milkha Singh Jat r/o Shri Guru Amar Dass Avenue, B-Clock, Ajnala Road, Amritsar and Maninder Crl.Misc.No.M- 51164 of 2004 (O&M) 9 Singh son of Rajinder Singh Jat, r/o Kothi No.93 Sector No.4, Housing Board Colony, Ranjiv Avenue, Amritsar was cultivating the land as shown in Khasra numbers and Section 145 which was imposed on 30.9.1999 for the two months. Besides these, party No.2 has been verified to be the owners of land measuring 34 kanal 11 marlas out of 59 kanals 19 marlas and they have been cultivating the said land. The remaining area of land measuring 25 kanal 8 marlas has been identified to be in the possession of party No.1 and cultivated by them. In this way, an order is issued to Assistant Collector Grade II Sh.J.P.Salwan to hand over the possession to party No.1 and 2 as per the aforesaid order pronounced. File after completion be consigned to record room."
Annexure P-7 is the order passed on an application moved by Satnam Singh and others against Gurinder Pal Singh and others seeking correction of girdawari qua 63 kanals 2 marlas of land. The application seeking correction of entry in the jamabandi was dismissed vide said order dated 24.8.1999. It was further mentioned in the order that mutation of ownership was changed qua 33 kanals 5 marlas of land after it had been sold by Bhushan Raj and others to Gurdinder Pal Singh Baath and Maninder Pal Singh Baath.
In appeal, the said order was upheld by Collector, Sub Crl.Misc.No.M- 51164 of 2004 (O&M) 10 Division, Ajnala vide order dated 31.8.2000 (Annexure P-8). As per Annexure P-9, Patwari, after visiting the spot reported on 2.7.1999 that Milkha Singh was cultivating the land of Mohinder Kaur. As per Annexure P-10, copy of Roznamcha Wakiyati, the demarcation of khasra numbers 88/6/2-3-9, 88/17-24/2-25/1-7/2-8-13-14/1-17/2- 24/1/1-24/1/89/20 was made. The persons present at the spot admitted the correctness of the demarcation. Satnam Singh remained present at the spot and did not raise any objection even on the asking A perusal of Annexure P-11 reveals that Satnam Singh had filed a suit against Sukhbir Singh and others for declaration that he had 1/4th share in khasra Nos. 88R/10 (5K) 16/2, (5K 8M), 17 (8K) 24//1, (1K 14M), 24/2 (4K 11M), 25/1 (11M), 88R/3, (2K 1M), 7/2 (1K5K), 8(7K 6M), 9(7K 12M), 12(8K) 13(8K), 14/1 (2K 12M). However, the said suit was dismissed in default. Application for restoration of the said suit was dismissed in default vide order dated 28.8.2003 (Annexure P-12). An application moved by Gurinder Pal Singh Baath seeking correction of entry in the girdawari qua 13 kanals 11 marlas of land comprised in khasra No.88//16/2(5-8)- 17 Min (5-8)-24/2 Min (2-4)-25/1(0-11) was allowed by Naib Tehsildar- cum- Assistant Collector, IId Class, Ajnala vide order dated 10.9.1998 (Annexure P-14). Thus, a perusal of the above documents reveals that the petitioners were in possession of the land in question and hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against Crl.Misc.No.M- 51164 of 2004 (O&M) 11 them would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 67 dated 10.7.1999 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 440/ 441/ 447/427/ 506/ 148/ 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Act, registered at Police Station Raja Sansi District Amritsar; order dated 24.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (Annexure P-3) and the order dated 17.4.2002 passed by the Suh Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 15, 2010 anita