Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narender And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 September, 2014
CRM-M-16320 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16320 of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision:02.09.2014
Narender and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate,with
Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Suvir Sidhu, DAG, Haryana,
for the State-respondent No.1.
Mr. N.K.Shekhawat, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short 'Cr.P.C.) is for quashing of FIR No. 179 dated 24.08.2010, under Sections 147, 149, 447 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (in short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Khol, District Rewari and consequent proceedings.
The respondents are contesting the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the records.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to para No. 2 of the petition wherein it has been stated that the land in dispute is joint ownership of the parties and no partition has taken place as of now. KUMUD VERMA According to learned counsel for the petitioners, in the absence of partition 2014.09.09 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-16320 of 2011 (O&M) 2 of the joint land, all co-sharers have a right over every inch of it, and as such no, offence of criminal trespass is made out. The contention is refuted by learned counsel for the respondents by referring to two reports, one of the Revenue Authorities dated 29.07.2010 and the second of Sadar Kanungo wherein possession of the complainant and subsequent purchasers of the land have been shown.
Section 441 IPC defines criminal trespass. It reads as under:-
"Criminal trespass-Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".
It is evident from the record that the civil suit between the parties is also pending and the question of ownership/possession has to be decided in that civil suit. Petitioners have based their claim on the joint ownership but have very deftly avoided a reference to the factum of actual possession over the land in question. However, the report dated 29.07.2010 reads as under:-
"Revenue record perused, as per jamabandi 2004-05 of Village Ahrod Tehsil and Distt. Rewari land comprised in Khewat No.98 Khatoni No.117 total Raqba 121 Kanal 11 Marla is related shamlat patti Khemanand. As per Mutations No.1276 of 1283 and 1291-1292 Rewati Devi W/o Sh. Ramesh Chander S/o Sh. Ganpat Singh has purchased 120 kanal 2 Marla Raqba in Khan Kast and as per mutation No.1312 Raqba 1 Kanal 9 Marla was purchased by Ramesh Chander S/o Sh. Ram Chander S/o Sh. Durga Parshad. As per above said record total Raqba 121 Kanal 11 Marla has been sold out. Out which Smt. Rewati Devi has sold out 8 Kanal to Dev Pal etc. vide KUMUD VERMA 2014.09.09 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM-M-16320 of 2011 (O&M) 3 M.No.1310 and as per M.No.1311 Surender Singh S/o Sh.Ganpat Singh sold out 3 Kanal 13 marla and as per M.No.1313 to Jagdish Yadav S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh 40 Kanal raqba and as per M.No.1314 to Shoba Devi W/o Tarun 7 Kanal 14 Marla and total 58 Kanal 7 Marla has been sold out. Now Rewati Devi has 60 Kanal 15 marla, Ramesh Chander 1 Kanal 9 marla Jagdish Yadav 40 Kanal, Dev Pal 8 Kanal, Sobha Devi 7 Kanal 14 Marla and Surender Singh 3 Kanal 13 Marla total 121 Kanal 11 marla Raqba in Khana Kast is recorded in favour of all the purchaser in Revenue Record. Report is submitted."
Reference also needs to be made to report dated 11.12.2010 of Sadar Kanungo according to which the land in question was found to be cultivated by Rewati, the complainant, and mustard crop to have been sown by her was found to be standing over there.
In the circumstances, coupled with fact that question of possession being question of fact cannot be adjudicated upon in the instant proceedings, I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter.
Dismissed.
Nothing said herein shall have any bearing on the disposal of the trial by the learned trial Court (MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN) JUDGE 02.09.2014 Kumud KUMUD VERMA 2014.09.09 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh