Manbir Singh v. State Of Punjab & ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-37634 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 21, 2017 Manbir Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Deep Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.103 dated 22.07.2014 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Julkan, District Patiala as well as further proceedings arising therefrom. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, first of all, I find that in the present case, after completion of investigation, challan has already been presented and charges
CRM No.M-37634 of 2014 -2have already been framed against the present petitioner also. As argued, two witnesses have already been examined-in-chief, which means that the trial Court has already found prima facie case against the present petitioner and the Court has already taken the cognizance of the case and the trial is going on.
The copy of the FIR has been placed on the record as Annexure P-1. The perusal of the FIR shows that it has been registered on the application of Jasbeer Kaur against Gurinder Singh and Manveer Singh. As per the FIR, Manveer Singh is grandson of Jasbeer Kuar and Gurinder Singh is her son-in-law. As per the allegations, 16 kanals of land is in the name of the complainant. After her death, she had to give this land to her four daughters, who served her and her husband till end. Out of the land owned by complainant's husband, only 27 kanals of land came in favour complainant's daughter Sarabjeet Kaur but her son-in-law Gurinder Singh and her maternal grandson Manbeer Singh in connivance with the administration have executed girdawari of 52 kanals of land in their favour in the year 2013.
When the complainant side came to know about it, they gave threats and harassed. It is also in the complaint that husband of the complainant is old aged and weak and not in his full consciousness and both of them by taking the benefit of his condition, have obtained the signatures on some documents and some blank papers and they have executed the sale deed, mutation and girdawari of land measuring 83 kanals i.e. share of complainant's three daughters in favour of maternal grandson Manbeer Singh in connivance with Tehsildar and ex-parte order dated 24.05.2013 was obtained by showing wrong address of remaining three daughters of the complainant.
CRM No.M-37634 of 2014 -3From the perusal of the FIR, in no way, it can be held that no offence is made out. Similarly, there is nothing on the record to show that registration of the FIR in the present case is abuse of process of law or amounts to miscarriage of justice. There are allegations against the accused levelled in the FIR and after completion of investigation, as already discussed, challan has been presented and the Court has already found prima facie case and has already taken the cognizance and two witnesses have been examined-in-chief.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to quash the FIR and the subsequent proceedings. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on the merits of the case and the above findings have been given for deciding the present petition only.
February 21, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No