Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 10 April, 2026
CRM-M-55557 of 2023 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-55557 of 2023 (O&M)
Reserved on: 25.03.2026
Pronounced on:10.04.2026
Uploaded on:10.04.2026
Dr. Gagandeep Singh Grewal
..Petitioner
Versus
Rajesh Kumar
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate Ms. Drity Jindal, Advocate and Ms. Kanika Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhraj Singh Brar, Advocate for the respondent. SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, JUDGE Prayer in the petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing of Complaint No.479/2015 dated Nil, instituted on 15.06.2015 under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506 IPC and summoning order dated 07.01.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.
2. The criminal complaint was filed by respondent-Rajesh Kumar stating therein that his father Chander Pal had taken a room on rent from Dr. Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal, where he was peacefully residing with his family since 1996. After death of Dr. Shiv Dev Kaur Grewal, Dr. R.S. Grewal, father of accused No.1 filed a civil suit for possession against him and other REEMA SAINI 2026.04.10 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-55557 of 2023 (O&M) -2- tenants. An ex-parte order was obtained and warrants of possession were issued by the Court on 13.06.2012. On 16.06.2012, both accused namely Dr. Gagandeep Singh Grewal and Harwinder Singh Bhatia, along with Bailiff of the Court went to the room of Chander Pal accompanied by 20-25 musclemen damaged the household articles and threatened family members of Chander Pal. When they resisted, the Bailiff went to the house of accused No.1 and made a false report that he had taken possession of room of Chander Pal and left. He did not made any inventory of articles lying in the room and did not even obtain signatures of Chander Pal or his family members on the warrants of possession. Thereafter, at about 12:15 p.m., both accused along with 5-6 unidentified persons armed with deadly weapons like iron rods and dandas, entered house of the complainant and started thrashing him, his father Chander Pal, his mother and his wife. When they raised hue and cry several persons collected. Thereafter, the accused ran away with their weapons threatening to kill them while going. Complainant was moved to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was medico legally examined. The matter was reported to the police and a written complaint was moved to ADCP Ludhiana and District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana regarding the incident but no FIR was registered under the influence of accused. Rather a false and frivolous case was registered against the complainant and five others. Police flatly refused to take action against the accused, who were still extending threats of life.
3. In preliminary evidence, complainant examined himself as CW- 1, Chanderpal as CW-2, Shanti Devi as CW-3, Balkar Singh as CW-4 and Dr. Karnail Singh as CW-5. He also tendered documentary evidence. REEMA SAINI 2026.04.10 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-55557 of 2023 (O&M) -3-
4. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, heard learned counsel for the complainant and summoned the accused (petitioner before the Court) under Sections 323, 341, 506 and 34 IPC. Offences under Sections 354 and 120-B IPC were not found made out.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, summoned as an accused in the criminal complaint, was a law abiding citizen, a reputed physician and lawful owner of the property where the alleged incident took place. The criminal complaint was malicious, fabricated and attracted the parameters as laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) 335, besides being barred by limitation. The criminal proceeding was not bonafide prosecution but vindictive counter blast arising out of long standing civil litigation which the respondent lost before the competent Civil Courts. The time barred criminal complaint was instituted with ulterior motive to wreak vengeance. The property in dispute originally belonged to Dr. Hira Singh, petitioner's great grandfather, who executed a Will dated 16.09.1944 in favour of Dr. Shiv Dev Singh. Due to illegal occupation of the property by respondent's family, petitioner's father filed a Civil suit for possession which was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 31.07.2008. Petitioner's appeal against the judgment and decree was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, on 02.12.2011 holding that petitioner's family was entitled to possession. In the execution proceedings, Bailiff Darshan Singh had executed warrants of possession on 16.06.2012. As per report of the Bailiff, respondent's father Chander Pal admitted that there was no stay order and peacefully vacated the room by removing their belongings. Thereafter, the Bailiff put his lock and handed over the keys to petitioner. Entire process was witnessed and signed by REEMA SAINI 2026.04.10 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-55557 of 2023 (O&M) -4- independent witnesses. The official document, therefore, proved that possession was taken peacefully and legally. After an hour of the Bailiff leaving, respondent along with his brothers and associates, broke open the locks, forcibly re-entered the premises, attacked the petitioner and his wife, assaulted Harvinder Singh and another colleague Kunal Khanna. In the course of incident, petitioner suffered grave injuries, including a meniscus tear for which he underwent surgery.
6. Learned counsel further submits that FIR was got registered against the respondents by petitioner No.1. Various false complaints Annexures P-4 to P-11 were lodged by the respondents on 16.06.2012, 18.06.2012 and 26.06.2012. All complaints contradicted each other and were found false, no FIR was registered on complaints of the respondent. After nearly three years, the respondent filed the private complaint with the court withholding the factum of earlier complaints and inventing a new and improved story. The complaint was a counter blast to the FIR already registered against the respondent and family. Statements of witnesses in preliminary evidence were identical, suggesting that they were tutored. The version did not match with the previous version in the complaint. Summoning order was passed on 07.01.2022 after six years of the complaint. As many as 32 opportunities were taken by the respondent to conclude preliminary evidence and another three years were taken to address arguments on the point of summoning. The complaint filed after losing civil proceedings was malafide and squarely fell within Category-7 of Bhajan Lal's case (supra). No ingredients of offences under Sections 323, 341, 506 IPC were made out and the summoning order was passed mechanically without analysing the evidence, without considering the delay and without REEMA SAINI 2026.04.10 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-55557 of 2023 (O&M) -5- applying mind to the contradictions. The criminal proceedings could not be used to settle property possession disputes and deserves to be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that delay in filing the complaint occurred as respondent No.2 was running from pillar to post to get the FIR registered and had been moving numerous complaints to the police which failed to act on them. He further submitted that after considering the preliminary evidence on record learned Trial Court rightly summoned the petitioner to face trial under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506 IPC. Appropriate course for the petitioner was to face the trial for the offences committed. He prayed that the petition be dismissed.
8. In Suman Mishra and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2025 INSC 203, it has been observed that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation....."
9. Relevant portion of another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Wajid and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, is also reproduced hereinbelow:
"30. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 REEMA SAINI 2026.04.10 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-55557 of 2023 (O&M) -6- of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."
10. Annexure P-3 is copy of report of Darshan Singh Bailiff dated 16.06.2012. Though no reply to the petition was filed by respondent, the existence of document has not been disputed during the course of arguments.
Annexure P-3 reads as under:
'Respectfully showth that today on 16.06.2012, I along with D.H. and the witnesses had gone to College Road,Ludhiana, to REEMA SAINI execute the warrants of possession. The boundaries of the disputed 2026.04.10 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-55557 of 2023 (O&M) -7- site were found to the exactly as per the site plan and open. The enquiry was made at the spot about the JD Sh. Chander Pal who was not found available at the spot, but his son met me who introduced his name as Rakesh and his daughter-in-law met me who introduced her name as Madhu and another person met me who introduced his name as Hari Ram. They were apprised about the warrants of possession who orally told that they are not aware of any such order, therefore, the possession was delivered to the DH as per the order of the Court and the DH also admitted it in writing, therefore, the possession has been delivered as per the order of the court and the D.H. has made to put his locks.'
11. What transpires from the record is that petitioner's father was the owner of the property i.e. two shops single storey, kitchen and latrine in Civil Line Ludhiana. The property was let out to Chander Pal father of respondent (complainant) who refused to vacate and deliver the possession.
A suit for possession was then filed by the petitioner, his father and two others which was dismissed vide judgment Annexure P-1 dated 31.07.2008 of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Divison), Ludhiana. In appeal, the judgment was reversed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who vide judgment dated 02.12.2011,Annexure P-2 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The suit for possession was decreed. Pursuant thereto, an execution petition came to be filed by petitioner wherein warrants of possession were issued and were duly executed, as per report Annexure P-3 reproduced above.
12. Version of respondent in his complaint is that on 16.06.2012, the petitioner along with Bailiff of the Court and others went to the REEMA SAINI disputed premises alongwith 20-25 musclemen, damaged the household 2026.04.10 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-55557 of 2023 (O&M) -8- articles, threatened family members of respondent who showed resistance, whereafter all of them along with Bailiff went to the house of petitioner where the Bailiff made a false report of taking possession and left. Thereafter, at about 12:15. p.m., the petitioner, Harwinder Singh Bhatia alongwith 5-6 unidentified persons armed with deadly weapons entered the house of complainant and started beating him, his wife and mother.
13. In view of the official court record of competent civil court prepared in due course of execution of official duties by a public servant, the complaint filed by respondent appears to be an act of retaliation against the petitioner for having obtained possession of the premises through due process of law.
14. Another document which illustrates the falsehood in the complaint is Annexure P-9 representation of respondent-Rajesh Kumar dated 16.06.2012 to the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. This document too has not been disputed during arguments. The same reads as under:-
'Today at about 11 AM case No. 658/2003 the Bailiff of Hon;ble Court of Ms. Pushpa Rani had brought a warrant of possession along with Balroop Kaur w/o R.S. Grewal, Gagandeep Singh, landlord r/o R.S. Grewal and one person having beard. They and 3-4 people threatened me of killing and the outsiders shopkeepers rescued me but the Bailiff of Hon'ble Court has given false report to police station Division No.8, and in his presence has vacated the room.'
15. The version of the incident as given in the complaint to the District and Sessions Judge, soon after the incident, is again in complete contradiction to the case projected in the complaint Annexure P-7. What respondent narrated in his complaint to the District Judge was that Balroop Kaur w/o R.S. Grewal and Gagandeep Singh son of R.S. Grewal along with REEMA SAINI 2026.04.10 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-55557 of 2023 (O&M) -9-
one bearded person came, attacked him with Iron rods, thrashed his head and threatened to kill him and the Bailiff of the court had given a false report to police station Division No.8 and in his presence has vacated the room.
16. The initiation of criminal prosecution after almost 3 years of the incident, appears to be nothing but a complete misuse and abuse of process of criminal law. It belies logic that petitioner, who took recourse to legal process in the year 2000 by filing a civil suit for possession of the shops against father of respondent, filed an appeal against the dismissal of his suit and thereafter sought warrants of possession to seek recovery of his property through legal means would take recourse to violent means by threatening and assaulting the tenant and his family members when he was armed with a Civil Court decree and warrants of possession legally issued by the competent Court. The fact that there is no mention of the incident in the warrants of possession complained of must be interpreted to the credit of the petitioner.
17. Apparently, the respondent (tenant's son) offended by the delivery of possession to the owner of the property, filed the complaint only to wreak vengeance, with oblique motive. If the respondent or his father was aggrieved with the order of ejectment and execution of warrants of possession, the appropriate remedy was to have challenged the same before the competent Court of jurisdiction. The validity, genuineness or otherwise of the execution of warrants of possession cannot be gone into by the criminal court. The dispute within the domain of the Civil Court has been given a colour of criminal offence. The matter which essentially involves the dispute of a civil nature cannot legally be allowed to become subject matter of criminal proceedings.
REEMA SAINI2026.04.10 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
CRM-M-55557 of 2023 (O&M) -10-
18. Once it is on record that in Civil execution proceedings, warrants of possession have been executed, a version contrary to the report of the competent officer of the Court acting in discharge of his public duties cannot be believed for invoking offences under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506 IPC. It is on record that petitioner also got FIR registered with respect to incident dated 16.06.2012, in which respondent No.2 faced trial. Respondent No.2 thus had legal assistance, yet, did not file the complaint promptly. After thought version, filed at highly belated stage, reagitating the delivery of possession in civil proceedings needs to be nipped at the very threshold as it would not be expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue.
19. In State of Karnataka V. L. Muniswamy and others (1977) 2 SCC 699, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court proceeding cannot be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature.
20. Permitting criminal prosecution would perpetuate injustice to the petitioner, who has obtained possession of the property after a long REEMA SAINI 2026.04.10 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-55557 of 2023 (O&M) -11- legal battle. The initiation of criminal prosecution of the petitioner is complete misuse of process of criminal law.
21. The petition is allowed. Complaint No.479/2015 dated Nil, instituted on 15.06.2015 under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506 IPC and summoning order dated 07.01.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
10.04.2026 JUDGE
reema
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes/No
REEMA SAINI
2026.04.10 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh