TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARLOCHAN Singh has filed this petition invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing first information report No. 257 dated 21.11.88 registered at Police Station, Ambala City and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the charge-sheet Annexure P/7.

(2.) THE case against the petitioner was registered on the basis of a written complaint presented at the police station by one J.S. Chaudhary who alleged that he was a resident of Ambala City, but had obtained a commission in 1939 in Royal Indian Navy. After his retirement he joined service of Government of India and retired as Director. Again he obtained a job in merchant navy as Commander and as he mostly remained away, he had executed a general power of attorney in favour of his brother-in-law Shri Ram Singh who looked after the house. On 2.5.1988 he received a telephonic message that Tarlochan Singh and Maksudan Lal respondents were out to take possession of the house forcibly. On receipt of this information he reached Ambala City on the next day and learnt that two bunch of keys were snatched by Tarlochan Singh from his sister Gurbax Kaur wife of Ram Singh and thereafter he entered the house and replaced his locks. Maksudan Lal and Satpal had also joined Tarlochan Singh in entering the house and removing the locks. One fictitious sale-deed too had been executed by practising fraud and thereby the entrance room of the house was blocked.

(3.) THE petitioner now alleged that one Criminal complaint was filed by Ram Singh General Attorney of Jaspal Singh complainant against Jodh Singh his father on 3.5.1988 in which it was alleged that Jodh Singh had taken forcible possession of the house in question, and that complaint was still pending and the complainant nowhere alleged that he had taken possession of the house from Jodh Singh thereafter, so allegations made in the complaint were apparently false. On 9.8.1982 Jaspal Singh had filed a civil suit against him and his father Jodh Singh for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his right to construct a wall in order to close doors existing in the wall towards the east of the house in question and he claimed ownership of the house on the basis of a Will executed by his mother in his favour. That Will was disputed by him and by his father and when civil suit regarding the ownership and possession of the house was pending, criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. It was further pleaded that in fact Jaspal Singh was in possession as co-sharer and he could not claim to be in exclusive possession of the building. The ingredients of the offence of criminal trespass were also not spelled out from the averments made in the first information report.