NANAK SINGH SEHGAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nanak Singh Sehgal and others have pressed into service provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 139/2000 registered at Police Station Model Town, Delhi with respect to offences punishable under Section 147, 149, 341, 454, 380, 458 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) . The facts of the petitioners case can be delineated to be that most of them are office bearers of Gurdwara Gujranwala Town Satsang Sabha. The plot of land underneath Gurdwara measuring 241.67 sq. yds was owned by Permanand Chhabra who donated the same in favour of Gurudwara Gujranwala Town Satsangh Sabha vide a Power of Attorney, agreement to execute the conveyance deed etc. Subsequently it is claimed that document in support were also executed in favour of Gurudwara Gujranwala Town Satsang Sabha. Thereafter the plot was constructed upon and Gurudwara building was set up. Respondent no.2, O P Arora claimed himself to be a doctor, he played a trick on the previous owner and some how entered into the ground floor rear portion of property bearing no. 45, Gujranwala Town, Delhi. On 18.2.2001 the Junior Engineer from Municipal Corporation approached the Police Station Model Town and requested for early assistance for demolition of unauthorised construction of plot no. B-45 Gujrawala Town, Delhi. Respondent no.2 lodged a daily diary entering alleging that a dacoity has taken place. The spot was visited by the police and respondent no.2 thereupon had informed that somebody had wrongly informed the police control room in this regard.

(3.) . Thereafter respondent no.2 through a friend filed a criminal writ petition no. 170/2000 seeking a direction for tracing the respondent no.2 0 P Arora and for registration of the First Information Report. Thereafter respondent no.2 got a registered a first information report No. 139 of 2000 in question. After registration of first information report petitioners' had claimed anticipatory bail from the court of Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners had been admitted to anticipatory bail. On 2 9/03/2000 this court dismissed the criminal writ petition no. 170/2000 when respondent no.2 was produced to have become infructuous.