SHARDA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer made in this petition is for quashing of the FIR No. 216, dated 22.9.2010, under Sections 380, 447, 448 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, registered at Police Station, Maqsudan, District Jalandhar.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3- complainant, Nirmal Kaur, moved an application to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Maqsudan, with the allegations that she was in possession of a portion of the joint land for the last 30 years where she had constructed a room and used to maintain her cattle. A fodder cutting machine, one engine and a hand pump were also installed there. A suit for partition of the same was pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for 27.9.2010. Prem Lal, Shardha Ram, Gian Chand, Paramjit and Mangat Ram wanted to take possession of the portion which was already retained by respondent No. 3-complainant. On 20.9.2010, when respondent No. 3-complainant, Nirmal Kaur, went to see her cattle there, she witnessed that all the persons, named above, were demolishing the constructed portion over that land and thereafter took away the fodder cutting machine and the engine with them. They also tried to displace and take away the hand pump. Nirmal Kaur and her son, Desh Raj, tried to stop them from demolishing the constructed portion, but the above said persons extended threats to them. On the basis of the above application, FIR No. 216, dated 22.9.2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 447, 448 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, was registered at Police Station, Maqsudan, District Jalandhar.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that civil litigation with regard to the land in dispute was pending between the parties; the disputed portion was a joint holding; respondent No. 3-complainant, Nirmal Kaur, was not satisfied with the orders passed by the revenue authorities; and from the perusal of the FIR, no case for prosecution of the petitioner was made out, therefore, the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed.