JAGDEV PURIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.20 dtd. 8/2/2022, under Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC read with Sec. 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 registered at Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar and all other subsequent proceedings taken therein on the ground that the FIR has wrongly been registered since the dispute is purely civil in nature.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR is an abuse of the process of law as on the initial complaint of the complainant, a detailed enquiry had been conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Headquarter, Jalandhar wherein it was found that the dispute between the parties is of civil in nature. Subsequently, as per the opinion of the District Attorney Legal, Jalandhar, no further action was called for and the file was consigned to the record. The enquiry report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Headquarter Jalandhar and the report of the District Attorney, Legal, Jalandhar are appended at Annexures P-22 and P-23 respectively. But later on, a similar complaint was filed and the present FIR has been registered which is totally unsustainable under the law. He also submits that the petitioner being a bonafide purchaser of the plot, has been implicated while exonerating the vendor of the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Md Ibrahim and others versus State of Bihar and another, 2009(8) SCC 751.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant has alleged that the plot measuring 15 marlas. situated in village Mithapur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar each marla measuring 272 sq. ft. comprised in khasra Nos.2//14/1/1, 15/1, 16/4 is the part of the colony and therefore, the revenue description of the entire rectangle numbers is common for all the plot purchasers. It is alleged that the petitioner had purchased the plot from other persons, who were predecessors-in-interest. However, he had only purchased the rastas' which were left out while carving out the colony and in the sale deed, he had described the plot and given the description of the plot belonging to the complainant.