Paras And ORS v. Santosh Chaudhary And ANR

Crl. Misc. No. M-24556 of 2014 (O&M) -1 - Crl. Revision No. 6 of 2015 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

1.

Crl. Misc. No. M-24556 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.9.2015.

Paras and others ........Petitioners Vs.

Santosh Chaudhary and another ......Respondents 2.

Crl. Revision No. 6 of 2015 (O&M) Paras and others ........Petitioners Vs.

Santosh Chaudhary and another ......Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. S.S.Salar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. I.S.Pabla, Advocate for the respondents.

.....

SABINA, J.

Vide this order, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of the criminal complaint as well as the order whereby charges were ordered to be framed against them.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. Case of the complainants, as per the complaint, in brief, is that the complainants were the daughters of accused Kanhaiya Lal. Accused Kanhiya Lal had inherited the land from his ancestors. GURPREET SINGH 2015.09.28 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Crl. Misc. No. M-24556 of 2014 (O&M) -2 - Crl. Revision No. 6 of 2015 (O&M) Complainants had filed civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against their father Kanhiya Lal. The land was acquired by the State and award was passed in favour of accused Kanhiya Lal. This Court had directed Kanhiya Lal to furnish security bonds in execution proceedings. Accused Kanhiya Lal had furnished the requisite bonds with regard to land measuring 59 kanals 15 marlas and 90 kanals 12 marlas situated in village Laha. Accused Kanhiya Lal had furnished the affidavit that he would not dispose of the said land till the decision of the appeal pending before this Court. However, accused Kanhiya Lal had executed a gift deed in favour of his sons. Hence, the complaint in question was filed.

In order to prove their case, complainants led their preliminary evidence. Accused were ordered to be summoned to face the trial. Petitioner Kanhiya Lal had executed a gift deed in favour of his sons i.e. petitioners No. 1 and 3, although, he had stated in his affidavit while furnishing surety bonds in execution proceedings that property in question would not be disposed of. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court rightly ordered the framing of the charges against the petitioners vide the impugned order.

No ground to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold is made out. Petitioners would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to them during trial. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 22, 2015 Gurpreet GURPREET SINGH 2015.09.28 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document