PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 371 dated 7.10.2011 under Sections 448, 453 IPC at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh. The brief facts give rise to the present petition are that an Industrial Shed was allotted to the petitioner in 1991. The petitioner paid 25% of the amount and possession was delivered to him on 09.07.1992. Subsequently, a complaint was given which led to the registration of FIR No. 3 dated 22.6.1993 under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC. The allegations were that the allotment had been procured by filing a false domicile certificate. The trial ended in conviction, however, in appeal the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 11.6.2009.

(2.) THE petitioner approached Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation for depositing the remaining amount but then came to know that the allotment had been cancelled. He then approached the department for restoration of the allotment as he had been acquitted. The case of the petitioner is that he was never dispossessed and after his acquittal he was entitled to restoration of the plot and now he was being accused of illegally trespassing into the property which is an abuse of the process of law and the FIR should be quashed.

(3.) IN the short reply submitted by the respondent it was pleaded that on a complaint filed by the General Manager of CITCO the FIR was registered. It was pleaded that the allotment in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled and the plot had been resumed and it had been locked and sealed by the Chandigarh Administration. Giving the background, it was pleaded that allegations were made that the allotment of the industrial shed had been obtained on false domicile certificate submitted by various allottees and enquiry was held by the Vigilance Cell. It was pleaded that provisional letter had been issued to the petitioner with respect to Shed No. 19 at village Maloya and it was cancelled on 08.11.1993 with the direction to the petitioner to vacate the shed but the petitioner failed to comply with it and the property was locked and sealed on 04.04.1995. It was pleaded that the trial ended in conviction, however, on appeal the judgment was set aside.