Satpal Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR.
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 14.09.2023 Satpal Singh ...... Petitioner versus State of Punjab & anr.
...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :- Mr. T.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.109 dated 03.12.2015, registered for offences punishable under Sections 447/511 IPC at Police Station Sadar Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab.
The FIR was registered on the statement of Surinder Pal @ Bhura S/o Parkash Ram wherein he alleged as under :- "Stated that I am resident of the above mentioned address and I do cultivation. We have land measuring 6 killas situated within the area of village Khamachon on Mahil Gehllan Road. We are in possession of this land since 1979 and we are cultivating the same. This year also, we have sowed rice in area measuring 4 killas and corn in two killas and thereafter harvested the same. Few years back, some portion out of the said land was purchased by Mohinder Kaur wife of Harbans Singh caste Jatt, resident of Bhor Majara, Police Station Sadar Banga. We came to know about it. Thereafter Mohinder Kaur went to America. We have filed case in the Court in this regard. Mohinder Kaur has executed power of attorney in
::2::
favour of Satpal Singh son of Lachman Singh caste Jatt, resident of Thenga, Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar, who is her Kuram (sambandhi). (sic). Satpal Singh has been trying to take possession of our land, due to which our entire family is protecting our land day and night. Yesterday i.e. 02.12.15 at about 10/11 PM, I and my friend Sanjay son of Kohlu, resident of Mahil Gehllan and Mangat Ram son of Joginder Ram, caste Ad-dharmi, resident of Mahil Gehlan went towards our fields. Satpal Singh above mentioned on farmtrack tractor 60 with cultivator, Satnam Singh alias Resham Singh caste Jatt, resident of Aur, Police Station Mukandpur on Mahindra tractor 475 of red color with generator were sowing the fields after entering the same.
Alongwith them, Harjinder Singh alias Jinder son of Paramjit Singh caste Jatt, resident of Garcha, Police Station Rahon and Harpreet Singh alias Lali son of Sodhi Singh caste Bajigar, resident of Aur were present in Innova car bearing no. PB 32 F 0024 and were trying to take illegal possession of our land with ill intention. We identified them in the lights of tractors and cars. On our raising noise, they all ran away to Banga side in their Innova car leaving behind their above mentioned tractors. Keeping in view the entire circumstances, we were going to Police Station for giving information." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is attorney holder of Harbans Singh and Mohinder Kaur who are owners of the land in dispute.
The Civil suit was preferred by the petitioner acting as attorney holder of Harbans Singh and Mohinder Kaur claiming decree of permanent injunction to the effect that respondent No.2 i.e. the complainant be restrained permanently from interfering in their peaceful, lawful, continuous and uninterrupted possession over the land measuring 63 kanal 17 marlas comprising khasra No.14//8/2, 14//6, 14//7, 19//25/2, 18//3/2, 14//3/1, 4//24, 14//15, 14//3/2, 4//18/2, 4//17, 4//23 bearing khata No.53/52/59, 54/53/60, 55/54/61, 56/55/62, 196/193/207, 205/202/217, 207/204/219, 220, 221, 268/265/284, 285/282/302, 294/291/326 as entered in the jamabandi for the year 2013-2014 and ad-interim positive injunction was granted vide order dated 14.09.
::3::
attempted trespass over the suit land. It has been further contended that in a suit filed by complainant i.e. Civil suit No. 111/15 instituted on 29.05.2015 titled as Surinder Paul Vs. Sarbjit Singh & ors. in which Mohinder Kaur and Harbans Singh both have been impleaded as defendants. Injunction was declined observing as under :- "10. From the documents placed on record by defendants no.2 and 3, this fact becomes amply clear that part of property which was mortgaged to Parkash Ram i.e predecessor in interest of plaintiff has already been got redeemed and possession of that part has also been delivered to Surjit Kaur.
Further, perusal of orders passed by the SDM/Collector shows that these orders were passed in favour of defendants in the presence of predecessor in interest of plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff was fully aware of the passing of the orders by the SDM/Collector as well as pendency of application filed by defendants no.2 and 3 for issuance of warrants of possession. However, all these facts have been concealed by the plaintiff at the time of filing of present suit. Relief of injunction is an equitable relief. It is settled principle of law that one who seeks equity must do equity. One who does not come to the Court with clean hands and suppresses material facts is not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction. In the present case, material facts have been concealed by the plaintiff for the reasons best known to him.
In such eventuality, plaintiff is not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. Therefore, in view of discussion made herein-above, it is to be stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of injunction as material facts have been concealed by the plaintiff. Therefore, application filed by plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 01 and 02 is dismissed. However any observation made by me while disposing of present application shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case. Application stands disposed off accordingly." Apart therefrom, counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the order dated 18.08.
2022 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), SBS Nagar whereby the complainant has been held guilty of having violated order passed by the Civil Court under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC in the application preferred by the petitioner on behalf of Mohinder Kaur and another and punished under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC.
::4::
Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, however, submits that in fact it is the complainant, who is in possession of the land and under the garb of interim order, the petitioner acting as attorney holder of Mohinder Kaur and Harbans Singh has tried to trespass over the suit land which resulted in the registration of the present FIR. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that after investigation the prosecution agency has filed report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. on 06.01.2016 and as per the investigation the petitioner was indeed trying to take illegal possession and thus was rightly booked for offence punishable under Section 447/511 IPC.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
The parameters with respect to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the hands of this Court while entertaining petition for quashing of the FIR stands well laid by Apex Court in State of Haryana & ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors., 1992 AIR (Supreme Court) 604 holding as under :- "107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
::5::
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
Facts with respect to civil lis are not much in dispute being matter of record. Even if the contents of FIR are taken on their face value complainant cannot deny the fact that Mohinder Kaur is a co-sharer though the said fact is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner who claims that Mohinder Kaur is owner.
Without going into the controversy this Court takes the averments made in the FIR on their face-value for the purpose of deciding the present petition. As per the same, Mohinder Kaur is co-owner of the
::6::
land she is alleged to have attempted criminal trespass upon.
47. Punishment for criminal trespass.
!
" # !" # $ %% & %
! # !!
!#
! !# !
! # !! # # $ %'
( #) ! ! !*ights of co-owner same stand well laid by full Bench of this Court in Bhartu Vs. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204 observing as under :- "4. The inter se rights and liabilities of the co-sharers were settled by a Division Bench of this Court in a very detailed judgment in Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram, AIR 1961 Pb. 528, and the following propositions, inter alia, were settled:
(1) A co-owner has an interest in the whole property and also in every parcel of it.
(2) Possession of joint property by one co-owner, is in the eye of law, possession of all even if all but one are actually out of possession.
(3) A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint
::7::
property does not necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of all
(4) The above rule admits of an exception when there is ouster of a coowner by another. But in order to negative the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on the ground of ouster, the possession of a coowner must not only be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of the other as, when a co-owner openly asserts his own title and denies that of the other.
(5) Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the co-owner who has been out of possession of the joint property except in the event of ouster or abandonment.
(6) Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights of other co-owners.
(7) Where a co-owner is in possession of separate parcels under an arrangement consented by the other co-owners, it is not open to any body to disturb the arrangement without the consent of others except by filing a suit for partition."
%+ ( ! ) * & , #'--./+0*&*/&01.2/340
5 #5 6 ,7
&# 8 ,9
#5 7! #6 ,
:/%0 ; ! ! /'0 7! ! # ! # ! /+0; 7 ! !
::8::
/0( " !, 7 # # ! "
# ! /20 " 7 ! " /10<! 7 ! /0 ! # ! !
" ! :
5 ## ! ! 7 7 7 7!; ##
= # # 7 # #
# 7
= 7 # 7
::9::
# ; 7! 7 # ! # # # # # # " # 7 5 #5
7
! / 0 !" # :1( " >;> >,>7!
) '--
>,> %-- >&>( #>;> !>,>5
>&> ! %-- >;> >;> " ! %-- >&> %-- ! ( !
">;> >,> 7 # !%-- ) >,> " - ? %#'#+ # # % '# '- >&> !
::10::
& >&> !
" > ? % '
( ! ! ! 7 :
; #5" # 8,,*> / 0$ In view of above, this Court finds that no offence under Section 447/511 IPC is made out. The primary ingredient to constitute offence punishable under Section 447 and defined under Section 441 i.e. 'entering upon the property in possession of another' cannot be alleged against the petitioner.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed. FIR No.109 dated 03.12.2015, registered for offences punishable under Sections 447/511 IPC at Police Station Sadar Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab is hereby quashed.
Needless to say that anything observed herein will have no bearing on the civil lis pending between the parties. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE 14.09.2023 Pooja sharma-I/Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable :
No