FAQIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TERSELY, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, petitioner Faqir Singh son of Jagir Singh was the owner and in possession, to the extent of half share of the land in question alongwith electric motor & tubewell bore with rotator fan (Pakha). He sold the land and all his rights (except the electricity connection) to complainant Harjit Singh son of Jiwan Singh respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant") and his brother Sarabjit Singh, by means of registered sale deed dated 6.5.2004 (Annexure P2). According to the complainant that although the petitioner has sold the land in dispute alongwith the electric motor, but subsequently, he has illegally sold the electricity connection to some other person and thus cheated him (complainant). In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner, vide FIR bearing No.199 dated 20.9.2007 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having CRM No.M-6280 of 2008 -2- committed the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar, Rajpura, District Patiala.

(2.) THE petitioner did not feel satisfied with the registration of criminal case and preferred the instant petition to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that even the complainant has further sold the disputed land to M/s Worldwide Township Development Private Limited, a construction company, by way of registered sale deed dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure P4). THE petitioner did not sell the electricity connection to the complainant and his brother, by virtue of sale deed (Annexure P2) and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Since the electricity connection was in his (petitioner's) name, so, he submitted the affidavit dated 11.4.2007 with the Punjab State Electricity Board (in short "the PSEB") for transferring it in the name of Harbans Ram son of Raju Ram, to whom, the same has been sold as per rules. As the complainant and his brother did not able to obtain the stay regarding the same subject matter, therefore, the civil suit filed by them was dismissed in default by the trial Court, vide order dated 6.9.2010 (Annexure PX).

(3.) ALTHOUGH nemo had (repeatedly) appeared on behalf of complainant- respondent No.2 despite service, but the State of Punjab refuted the prayer of petitioner and filed the reply, inter-alia taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. CRM No.M-6280 of 2008 -3- Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that respondent No.1 has reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR (Annexure P1). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that the State of Punjab has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.