IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-33582 of 2009
Date of Decision : October 29, 2009
Gurmeet Kaur and others
... Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
Present: Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Pradeep Virk, DAG Haryana for respondent no. 1
Mr. Veneet Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent no. 2
L. N. Mittal, J.
Gurmeet Kaur, her sister Ravinder Kaur and their mother
Dalbir Kaur have filed the instant petition under section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 26 dated 22.2.2006, under
sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Brara,
District Ambala, (Annexure P/1).
According to the prosecution version, Dilbagh Singh who is
father of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner no. 3 entered into
agreement to sell dated 5.5.2005, Annexure P/2 regarding 60 bighas of land
in favour of complainant-respondent no. 2 Balbir Singh. However, Dilbagh
Singh transferred the said land in favour of his sons by way of award dated
10.8.2005, Annexure P/4 passed by Samjhauta Sadan/Permanent Lok
Adalat, Ambala on the basis of consent of Dilbagh Singh. A house which
is not part of the agreement to sell was transferred in favour of petitioner
nos. 2 and 3 herein. No property has been transferred in favour of
Criminal Misc. No. M-33582 of 2009 -2-
petitioner no. 1. The grievance of the complainant is that Dilbagh Singh in
collusion with his three sons (non-petitioners) and the petitioners transferred
the land in favour of his sons so as to deprive the complainant of purchasing
the land pursuant to agreement to sell.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case file.
As noticed hereinabove, the agreement between Dilbagh Singh
and complainant was regarding sale of land only and no part of the said land
has been transferred in favour of the petitioners. Perusal of Lok Adalat
award Annexure P/4 also reveals that a house which is not part of agreement
to sell was transferred in favour of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and no property
whatsoever was transferred in favour of petitioner no. 1. It, thus, becomes
manifest that no offence can be said to have been committed by the
petitioners even if all the allegations of the complainant are taken at their
face value. Concern of the complainant is with the land which is part of
the agreement to sell. The petitioners have nothing to do with the said land
nor any part thereof has been transferred in favour of the petitioners.
Consequently, prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the
process of the court because they cannot be said to have committed any
offence whatsoever.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that
petitioners are party to award Annexure P/4 whereby land which is subject
matter of the agreement to sell Annexure P/2 was transferred in favour of
sons of Dilbagh Singh. Further merely on this basis, the petitioners cannot
be said to have committed any offence because by the said award, petitioner
Criminal Misc. No. M-33582 of 2009 -3-
nos. 2 and 3 were declared to be owners of the house which is not subject
matter of the agreement to sell and petitioner no. 1 got no property. If
petitioner nos. 2 and 3 got their rights in the house adjudicated upon in the
Lok Adalat, they cannot be said to have committed any offence when the
said house is not subject matter of the agreement to sell and the complainant
has nothing to do whatsoever with the said house.
In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and FIR
No. 26 dated 22.2.2006, under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-
B IPC, Police Station Brara, District Ambala, (Annexure P/1), is quashed
along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners
only.
( L. N. Mittal )
October 29, 2009 Judge
'dalbir'