KANWAR VISHAVJIT SINGH Vs. ATAMDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS relevant for the disposal of this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of a complaint, Annexure P-I under sections 420120 B Indian Penal Code and summoning order, Annexure P-5 dated May 25, 1990, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, may be briefly stated as under :

(2.) THE petitioner and the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant) are two branches of the family of one Sardar Gulab Singh. Shri Gulab Singh had five sons, of whom one was Shri Rajeshwar Singh. The complainant is grandson of Shri Rajeshwar Singh, being the son of Shri Segdev Singh. The petitioner is the adopted son of Sardarni Surjit Kaur, widow of Shri Prithvijit Singh son of Shri Gulab Singh. Shri Gulab Singh left considerable lands. The lands included khara Nos. 4531, 4532, 4533, 4534, 4535, 4546 and 4537 measuring 211 Kanals and I Marla, situate in the area of Kapurthala town. In 1967, the complainant claims to have obtained proprietary rights in respect of the aforesaid land. In 1978 the petitioner is stated to have dishonestly and fraudulently induced Shri Sehdev Singh. father of the complainant, and got attested mutations No. 6909 and 6910 dated August 9, 1978, as a result of which the petitioner got 3/4th share and Shri Sehdev Singh got 1/4th share in the lands covered by the two mutations, including the land in dispute. The complainant was aggrieved by the attestation of the two mutations. A compromise took place between the petitioner and the complainant on November 2, 1978. It was duly registered. It is Annexure P-2. Broadly speaking, it was agreed between the parties that the terms of the compromise would override the two mutations referred to above, and the complainant (Atamdev Singh) shall be the exclusive owner in possession of land described above situate at Kapurthala. With regard to the other parcels of land, certain shares inter se were specified and with regard to that land it was agreed that if any land was to be sold or leased out or alienated in any other manner, the same shall be done with prior consent in writing of the other party. The case of the complainant is that in contravention of the compromise Annexure P-2, the petitioner had created a lease of 99 Years for 4 petty fum of Rs. 50,000/- with regard to the 3/4th share of Khasra Nos. 4531 and 4532 measuring 115 Kanals 17 Marlas in favour of accused Nos. 2 and 3 on August 19, 1988, by a registered lease deed. The material averments in the complaint in para 12 are in these words :-

(3.) A written statement was filed by the respondent. He emphasised the validity and binding effect of the compromise Annexure P-2. On the basis of the said compromise, he claimed to be exclusive owner in possession of the land detailed above. He admitted that he had not mentioned about the civil litigation in the criminal complaint but stated that the civil litigation had no relevance for the purpose of the criminal complaint he denied having committed breach of any condition of the compromise Annexure P-2. He reiterated that the petitioner had created a lease of a part of the land in dispute in favour of accused Nos. 2 and 3 without written consent of the complainant.