KULWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') for quashing order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana in criminal complaint No. 4/1 dated 26.03.2010 for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') by which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the aforesaid offences as well as criminal complaint (Annexure P1) filed by respondent No. 2.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contends that mutation in regard to the land in dispute was sanctioned in favour of petitioner No. 2 in the year 1963 and it has been duly reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1968 -69 (Annexure P6). It is further argued that land in dispute does not belong to Gurudwara/Dharamshala Bawnaji and the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted by alleging that they had committed fraud and forgery in regard to land purported to be owned by the Gurudwara. It is further argued that notification (Annexure P4) was issued on March 18, 1931 by the Punjab Government by invoking the provisions of the Gurudwara Act 1925 and as per the notification, all rights, titles and interests in the properties claimed to belong to Gurudwara having invested in the State of Punjab. It is further argued that as per notification dated 15.10.1998 (Annexure P5), the members of the Committee for Gurudwara Manjit Sahib Patshahi 6th at Ludhiana Khadoor West, District Ludhiana were elected to manage the affairs of said Gurudwara. According to counsel, if petitioner No. 2 has in any manner dealt with the property of Gurudwara, it is for the Managing Committee of Gurudwara Manjit Sahib Patshahi 6th to initiate action against the petitioners. It is argued with vehemence that the alleged Managing Committee of Gurudwara Bawnaji has got no locus standi to initiate the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, when otherwise litigation is pending in the civil court in regard to transfer of land in dispute by petitioner No. 2 through sale deed dated 30.06.2008 and petitioner No. 2 shall be bound by the decision of the civil court. The last submission made by counsel is that criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are nothing but abuse and misuse of process of law, thus, liable to be quashed.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.