PRITAM SINGH Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Pritam Singh and others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing of the complaint titled as "Amrik Singh vs. Beyant Singh and others" under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of ACJM, Kurukshetra(Annexure P-4), the summoning order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure P-5) and the subsequent proceedings.

(2.) According to the petitioners, an agreement was entered into between petitioners No. 1 to 4 and petitioner No. 5 on 6.2.2005 regarding the ancestral house and as per that agreement, petitioner No. 5 is coming in possession thereof from the last seven years, who was given the authority to give the same on rent or retain the same for himself. Petitioner No. 5 along with his wife had given that house to Amrik Singh-respondent, whose house had been damaged, to stay there till the repairs of his own house. The respondent was staying on the terrace of that house whereas the first floor was kept locked by petitioner No. 5. On 15.7.2006, he visited that house along with his wife and was astonished to see that the locks of the house had been broken and theft had taken place. He lodged FIR No. 248 dated 18.7.2006 against the respondent. The respondent got lodged FIR No. 308 dated 23.8.2006 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC in Police Station, Shahbad, District Kurukshetra by filing a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code. After investigation, the police did not find any truth in that FIR and submitted the cancellation report on 6.6.2007. The respondent filed a protest petition in the Court of ACJM, Kurukshetra, against them on the same allegations as made in the FIR, in which they were summoned to stand their trial for the offences under Section 467 and 471 IPC, after recordings the preliminary evidence. That complaint is nothing but a counter blast to the FIR, which was got registered by petitioner No. 5 against the respondent in which he is already facing his trial. The agreement dated 6.2.2005 bears their signatures and was duly registered. That agreement was never challenged by the respondent and the same was found to be a genuine document. During the investigation of the above said FIR No. 308 dated 23.8.2006, petitioners no. 1 to 4 had sold their share in the ancestral property in favour of respondent No. 5 after receiving the sale consideration. The complaint and the subsequent proceedings are the abuse of process of law.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondent as well as to the State of Haryana, which was impleaded as respondent No. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned State counsel. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the same set of facts, as pleaded in the complaint, the respondent got lodged the FIR which after investigation was found to be false. That itself shows that the respondent by filing the complaint is abusing the process of the Court. The agreement was duly entered into between the parties and is a genuine document. There is nothing on the record for concluding that the same was forged by the petitioners. Therefore, complaint and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent had the right to file the complaint by way of a protest petition after the police submitted the cancellation report in the FIR on the ground that after investigation, the facts, as alleged in the FIR, were found to be false. The complaint cannot be quashed merely on the ground that such a cancellation report has been submitted by the investigating agency. It is very much clear from the perusal of the complaint that the agreement is a forged document. The house, in dispute, was ancestral house, which was inherited by the petitioners as well as by the respondent in equal shares. The petitioners could not have entered into any such settlement at the back of the respondent. He further argued that the petitioners could have filed a revision against the summoning order and such a petition under Section 482 of the Code is not maintainable. In support of his arguments he has cited Minu Kumari and another v. State of Bihar 2006(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 271; Ram Biraji Devi and another v. Umesh Kumar Singh and another 2006(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 308 and M/s Larsen ad Toubro Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2007(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 706.