OM PARKASH Vs. SWARANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Om Parkash, Jaibir Singh and Rajbir Singh, petitioners, for quashing of criminal complaint No. 17 of 2005 titled as 'Swaranjir Kaur vs. Om Parkash and others' under Sections 420, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-1), the summoning order dated 7.3.2005(Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings taken in that complaint on the ground that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any criminal offence by them and the alleged dispute between them and complainant-respondent No. 1 admittedly and undeniably a civil dispute and that this complaint is an abuse of the process of law.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the complainant is a close relation of Shri Baljeet Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rewari, being his mother-in-law. As per her allegations, petitioners No. 1 and 2 had taken a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from her and mortgaged their land measuring 7 Kanals-19 Marlas with possession vide mortgage deed dated 12.4.2004 and as per the terms and conditions of that mortgage deed, they were to repay the mortgage money by 30.11.2004 and in case of their failure to do so, they were bound to execute a registered sale deed regarding the said land in her favour. It has also been alleged in the complaint that they could not repay the mortgage money and refused to execute the sale deed in spite of issuance of a legal notice. Even if these allegations are taken on its face value, even then the alleged dispute is of civil nature and the only remedy available with the complainant is to file a civil suit for getting the sale deed executed in her favour by way of specific performance of the agreement. The complaint has been filed in order to illegally bring them into her submissions and to comply with her illegal demand. They were allowed anticipatory bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide order dated 27.4.2005. That order was to remain in force only for one month and no reason was recorded therein as to why that order of limited duration was passed. They moved an application for regular bail on 4.5.2005 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tohana, who was pleased to accept their bail bonds and surety bonds and those were ordered to remain in force only up to 26.5.2005. When their application for anticipatory bail was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, they were forced to give an affidavit to the effect that they would get the sale deed registered regarding the land in dispute in favour of the complainant as and when desired by her or as directed by the Court. The preliminary evidence led by the complainant did not disclose the commission of criminal offence by them. Even the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, observed in his order that the dispute between the parties was primarily of civil nature. As the complainant was related to the Additional Sessions Judge, so, an effort has been made by all concerned including the said court to bring into her submissions so that they comply with the illegal, unjustifiable and undesirable demand of the complainant.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel.