Gian Singh Etc v. State of Hy.Etc

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

¶1The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.72 dated 22.03.1994 registered under Sections 148, 149, 454, 380, 448, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Indri, District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶2In brief, the facts are that FIR (supra) was registered on the basis of statement made by Sheela Devi wife of Bhagat Ram, resident of Village Dabkauli Kalan, Police Station Indri wherein it was that on 13.03.1994, she went Karnal and when she came back in the evening, lock of her house was found broken and Gian Singh son of Babu Ram, Man Singh son of Babu Ram, Krishan son of Babu Ram, Sri Chand son of Krishan, Shish Pal, Ram Pal sons of Prithvi Singh, Surat Singh son of Ram Saran, Dharambir son of Shish Pal, Karambir son of Shish Pal, Mehar Singh son of Ram Saran, Sher Singh son of Ram Saran, Bhim Singh so Hari Ram, Hari Mam Raj, Ram village Bibipur son of Atma R ladies of their f gandasi. Dhara of Krishan, Sar Bhim Singh, G Kalan were als how can you breaking open does not belong us. Bricks purc we will raise fu and utensils et persons during of Krishan, cast Abala caste Ja persons abused intervened on w breaking open residents, who Legal action w household artic

n of Ram Saran, Gaje Singh so i Ram son of Partapa, Amar Sin mbir son of Neki Ram, Om Pal s Jatan armed with his gun, Sad Ram, Sunder son of Maya Ram family were present at the spot. ambiri wife of Gian Singh, Boha roj Devi wife of Gaje Singh, w Gaje Singh, Sadhu Ram and oth o standing there. The accused occupy our plot. We have ta the lock and we would not allo g to your husband, grandfather or chased by us are lying there and urther construction. 10 bags of tc. were also lying in the plot day time. Balwan Singh son of te Jat, Dharam Singh son of Bha at, resident of village were als d her in presence of all these p which accused persons, who had the lock and stolen the hou had intervened to leave the sp was sought against the accuse cles and harassed her. Thereafte

on of Hari Ram, Megh Pal son ngh son of Partapa, Partapa son on of Maya Ram, Pritu Sarpanc dhu Ram son of Atma Ram, Pre m, Ombir son of Sadhu Ram an They were armed with lathis an ati wife of Man Singh, Kamla wi wives of Surat Singh, Sher Sing her residents of village Dabkau persons threatened her by statin aken possession of the same b ow you to reside here, as this pl r grandmother, rather it belongs constructed house on this plot an cement, 20 bags of urea fertiliz t, which were stolen by accuse f Shiv Ram caste Jat, Joginder so agirath caste Jat, Rai Singh son o present there and the accuse persons. Residents of the villag d taken possession of her house b usehold articles threatened tho pot otherwise they will kill them ed persons who had stolen h er, a panchayat was convened f of of ch, em nd nd ife gh, uli ng by lot to nd zer ed on of ed ge by se m. her protecting her r about 11 PM, G her house unde Legal action wa

¶6Learned petitioners, resp family settleme respondent No. petitioner No.1 tried to disposs timely interven not succeed in petitioner No.1 permanent injun Balwan Singh t interim injunct

18.02.1994. H respondent No. (supra) was reg (supra) is nothin respondent No petitioner No.1 the learned Civ local commissio stated that on s

rights but no justice was done to Gian Singh son of Babu Ram an er the influence of liquor and thr as sought against the accused per senior counsel for the petitio pondent No.2 and the complain ent was arrived at between the f .2 whereby the disputed plot fe , however, in the first week of sess petitioner No.1 from the p ntion of respectable persons of th n his motive. Since responden 1 filed a civil suit bearing N nction against respondent No.2, to not to interfere in his peacefu tion was granted by the learn However, on 22.03.1994, com .2 made a false complaint again gistered against petitioners. It w ng but an outcome of the civil su o.2 and his mother. In fact from the suit property despite i vil Court in favour of petitioner N oner was appointed by the learn spot inspection, petitioner No.1

her. In the night of 20.03.1994 nd his associates came in front reatened her that we will see yo rsons. oners inter alia contended th nant are related to each other. forefathers of petitioner No.1 an ell to the share of grandfather February, 1994, respondent No plot in dispute, however, due he village, respondent No.2 cou nt No.2 did not mend his way No.199 dated 18.02.1994 seekin complainant Sheela Devi and on ul possession and in the said su ned trial Court vide order date mplainant-Sheela Devi mother nst the petitioner whereupon FI was further contended that the FI uit filed by petitioner No.1 again t, respondent No.2 dispossesse interim injunction was granted b No.1. In the aforesaid civil suit, ned Civil Court, who in his repo 1 was found in possession of th at of ou. hat A nd of o.2 to uld ys, ng ne uit, ed of IR IR nst ed by , a ort disputed plot. offences as sta parties over po Court prior reg colour of crimi the judgment p Punjab 1998 ( between parties and no ground t judgment of Ho to contend that cloak of crimin

¶7Per contr No.2 contended breaking open them. There ar therefore, the in

¶8Having h of the case, th appearing for t No.1 seeking p one Balwan Sin of petitioner No his possession interim injuncti

No case is made against th ated in the FIR (supra). It is a ossession of disputed plot, whic gistration of the FIR (supra) and nal case. In support of his con passed by this Court in Dera S

(1) RCR (Criminal) 472 where s over possession of dera and lan to register FIR is made out. Fur on'ble Supreme Court passed in a matter which is essentially of al offence is liable to be quashed ra, learned State counsel and the d that petitioners had forcibly t the lock and the household ar e specific allegations against the nstant petition is liable to be dism heard learned counsel for the par his Court finds merit in the a the petitioners. Admittedly, a permanent injunction against re ngh for restraining them from in o.1 over said property, meaning over the property in dispute. ion was also granted in his fav

e petitioners for commission a dispute of civil nature betwee ch was pending before the Civ d therefore, it could not be give tention, reliance was placed upo Siri Chand Darbar Vs. State ein it has been held that dispu nd attached to it, is of civil natu rther reliance was placed upon th n G.Sagar Suri Vs. State of U. f civil nature but has been given d. e counsel appearing for responde taken possession of the house b rticles lying there were stolen b e petitioners in the FIR (supra) an missed. rties and after perusing the reco arguments raised by the couns civil suit was filed by petition espondent No.1, complainant an nterfering into peaceful possessio g thereby, petitioner No.1 claime It is also admitted fact that a vour. The civil suit was filed o of en vil en on of ute ure he P. n a ent by by nd rd sel ner nd on ed an

18.02.1994 and dispossessing p in any manner alleged incident as to what prev Furthermore, g complainant we instant FIR is respondent No. claimed his po against respond him forcibly an days in lodging

13.03.1994. In SCC 673, the powers of a Hi should be exerc such criminal p of preventing a justice. It must given a cloak o available, the H prevent abuse o

¶9Where a where the pro

d on the same day, defendants in petitioner No.1 from the suit prop r. The FIR (supra) was regist t had occurred on 13.03.1994. T vented the complainant from reg general allegations of breaking ere levelled against 35 persons. a counter-blast to the civil suit .2 and others including the com ssession over the suit property dent No.2, his mother and one B nd the FIR (supra) is merely an a g the FIR on 22.03.1994 when the n the case of Paramjeet Batra v. Hon'ble Supreme Court has igh Court under Section 482 of cised sparingly, yet the High Co proceedings which are essentially abuse of the process of any cou be seen whether a dispute whic of criminal offence and in such High Court should not hesitate to of process of the court. criminal proceeding is manifest ceeding is maliciously institut

the said suit were restrained fro perty and also alienating the sam tered on 22.03.1994 whereas th There is no explanation came for gistering the FIR for about 9 day open the lock of the house In the opinion of this Court, th t filed by petitioner No.1 again mplainant wherein petitioner No and sought permanent injunctio Balwan Singh to not to disposse fterthought as there is a delay of e alleged incident had occurred o . State of Uttarakhand (2013) 1 held that although the inhere f the Code of Criminal Procedu ourt must not hesitate in quashin y of a civil nature for the purpo urt or otherwise to secure ends ch is essentially of a civil nature h a situation, if a civil remedy quash the criminal proceedings tly attended with mala fide and/ ted with an ulterior motive f om me he rth ys. of he nst o.1 on ess f 9 on ent ure ng se of is is to /or wreaking venge and personal gr Cr.P.C. should SCC 335). The Mustafa Vs. Th 2023 decided o being not succ Amanullah obse "36. W been con more oft criminal the part process frankly, regard t been lod with den family m proceed ulterior

¶10In view allowed and FI

eance on the accused and with a rudge, the inherent power of th be exercised (see State of Hary e Hon'ble Supreme Court in th he State of Karnataka and anot on 10.05.2023 has quashed the F cessful in civil suits. Speaki erved as under:- What is evincible from the extan nsistent in interfering in such m ften than not, relating to land and lity, only for the purposes of ex ty concerned, which, we reiter of the court. In the present c unexplained delay of over 60 to the ownership of the land in qu dged only after failure to obtain nial of relief in the interim the members. It is evident that resor dings which, in the considered motives, for oblique reasons and of the aforesaid facts and circu IR No.72 dated 22.03.1994 reg

a view to spite him due to priva he High Court under Section 48 yana v Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp ( he judgment passed in Sri Gula ther, Criminal Appeal No.1452 FIR filed by the complainant aft ing through Justice Ahsanudd nt case-law is that this Court ha atters where purely civil dispute d/or money are given the colour xerting extra-judicial pressure o rate, is nothing but abuse of th case, there is a huge, and qui 0 years in initiating dispute wi uestion, and the criminal case ha n relief in the civil suits, couple erein to the respondent No.2/h rt was now being had to crimin d opinion of this Court, is wi d is a clear case of vengeance." umstances, the instant petition gistered under Sections 148, 14 ate

(1) am of ter din as es, of on he ite ith as ed er nal ith

is 49, 454, 380, 448, subsequent proc

May 30, 2024 Pankaj*

506 IPC registered at Police Sta ceedings arising therefrom are qu

(HARPR

ation Indri, District Karnal and a uashed qua petitioners. REET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

CRM No.18191-M of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CRM No.18191-M of 1994 (O&M) Reserved on:20.05.2024 Pronounced on:30.05.2024 Gian Singh and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aashna Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. P.S. Chahal, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***