AMARJIT KAUR Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose off two petitions, i.e., CRM M-46421 of 2018 titled as "Amarjit Kaur Vs. Raghbir Singh" and CRM M-5266 of 2019 titled as "Jasbir Kaur Vs. Raghbir Singh", whereby, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of criminal complaint No. 66 dtd. 8/7/2016 titled as "Raghbir Singh Vs. Prem Singh and others" (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dtd. 12/9/2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khadur Sahib, whereby, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC.

(2.) The complaint in the present case was instituted at the instance of Raghbir Singh, respondent, who claims himself to be the resident of "Sri Guru Amardass Jojavan Nagar Sudhar Sabha, Goindwal Sahib", which was doing the welfare works at Goindwal Sahib and in surroundings areas. As per him, there was one government street at Goindwal Sahib and which was also used by the villagers to go to other streets and the entire village was using such a street. Prem Singh and Balwinder Singh Kahlwan, co-accused were constructing 19 shops on the street illegally and people were suffering due to the said illegal act. Even though, they tried to stop them but they told them that they had the sale deed of 14 marlas in their favour and they were owners of the same. When he investigated the matter, he came to know about the big fraud in the revenue record, which was committed by accused jointly and now they wanted to construct 19 shops on the street in question. Even, they did not get the demarcation of the above said street in question and wanted to earn illegal profit by constructing 19 shops in question as it was a valuable piece of land. All the accused had already tampered with the sale deed and the land of 02 marlas was increased to 14 marlas and it was an outcome of fraud. Even, the complainant and others had moved various complaints to the higher authorities but no action was taken against the accused. During the course of preliminary evidence, the respondent/complainant himself appeared as CW1 whereas he also examined four more witnesses and after tendering certain documents, the evidence was closed by order. Ultimately, the matter was considered by the trial Court and vide the impugned summoning order dtd. 12/9/2018 (Annexure P-2), the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khadur Sahib, summoned four accused including both the petitioners under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that even from the allegations levelled by the respondent in the present case and the preliminary evidence, no offence was made out against the present petitioners. In fact, the dispute pleaded in the complaint was especially civil in nature and had been given the cloak of a criminal offence, without any evidence to that effect. Even the revenue authorities had duly carried out the correction in their revenue record vide Fard Badar dtd. 27/2/2015 and had corrected the land entries. Further, a demarcation dtd. 16/2/2015 was carried out by the revenue authorities and it was clearly mentioned that there was no encroachment by the present petitioners on the said land. He further contends that even, the respondent had concealed the material facts and had simultaneously instituted a complaint against the petitioners and others. In fact, the respondent had filed a civil suit in the year 2015 (Annexure P-3) against the petitioners and others and the suit was also amended on 3/3/2016. Even, the petitioners alongwith other parties had submitted their replies in the civil suit, which were annexed with annexure P-4 and even the copy of the reply filed by the Gram Panchayat was annexed as annexure P-6. Still further, the petitioners alongwith other co-sharers of the property had filed a suit for permanent injunction dtd. 28/4/2017 against the respondent and others and were granted interim injunction by the trial Court on 28/4/2017 against the respondent and the copy of the said order (Annexure P-6) was on the record. Moreover, it has been wrongly alleged that the petitioners had tampered with the revenue record, whereas much prior to the institution of the complaint, the half share of the property in dispute was purchased by the accused side from Gurdev Singh son of Ujjagar Singh and the entry had already been made in the jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 and 2012-2013 as well. Learned counsel referred to the copy of the judgment and decree dtd. 1/5/2023 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khadur Sahib, whereby, the civil suit filed by the respondent and others has been ordered to be dismissed. Whereas, vide judgment dtd. 13/8/2024 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Court of Indu Bala, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Khadur Sahib, the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed with costs and the defendants which included the respondent were restrained from interfering in the suit property or to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property except in due course of law. Thus, even before the Civil Court, the respondent had lost the legal battle and the FIR is an instrument of misuse of process of law.