PARMPREET KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of FIR No. 56 dated 28.05.2012 (Annexure P/3) under Sections 452, 295, 427, 323, 148, 149, 506, 447, 511 and 120- B IPC registered at Police Station Rahon, District SBS Nagar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of the present petition; that earlier civil litigation was going on as husband of petitioner No.1 had filed a civil suit against respondent No.2, Mohinder Pal, who is complainant and author of present FIR, Annexure P/3. The said civil suit was filed on 14.5.2012. Reply to the said suit was filed by respondent No.2. As per the petitioners, registration of FIR, Annexure P/3 is a counter-blast to the said litigation. Meharban Singh, husband of petitioner No.1 was abroad at the time of alleged incident and FIR was got registered on totally false grounds. There was no registration No. of 475 Mahindra tractor. There was no medical report indicating that any injury was suffered. There was delay of more than 5 days in lodging the alleged FIR. No offence of criminal trespass or house trespass has been made out as respondent No.2 has not even shown that he was in possession of the property in question. Jamabandi, Annexure P/4 and Khasra Girdawari, Annexure P/5 with respect of khasra No. 19//27 would not even remotely show that respondent No.2 was in possession of the same.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that enquiry was conducted in this case by Deputy Superintendent of Police (D), who had submitted his report that the case was totally false and the FIR, Annexure P/3, deserves to be cancelled. Thereafter, respondent No.2 along with petitioners and Meharban Singh executed a writing (Annexure P/6) dated 28.06.2012 in the presence of witnesses. In the said compromise, Annexure P/6, it was clearly mentioned by respondent No.2 that he had got the said FIR registered on the basis of suspicion although the petitioners were not present at the spot. More so, on demarcation, it was established that petitioner No.1 and her husband are owners in possession of the property in question and respondent No.2 was to make a statement for quashing/cancellation of the FIR, Annexure P/3.