Raghuveer Das v. State Of Haryana And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.08.2024 Raghuveer Das .... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ****

Present:

Mr. Akash Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ J.

1.

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of FIR No.719, dated 11.10.2023, under Sections 323, 34, 341, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Thanesar Sadar, District Kurukshetra along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2.

Succinctly the facts of the case are that the present FIR has been lodged on the statement made by respondent No.2-complainant, namely, Rubal Sharma. It has been alleged that complainant/respondent No.2 was the owner in occupation of house No.561, Sector 5, Kurukshetra, plot No.51 and 52 situated near Tirupati Bala Ji Temple, Kurukshetra. He took JCB for construction of the boundary wall in his plot. As soon as they reached near the plot with the JCB and started digging, the priest of Tirupati Bala Ji Temple, Rishi Tyagi and 2-3 other persons started quarreling with them. They abused them and stopped them

from carrying out the work. They called the police, who arrived at the spot. The complainant/respondent No.2 was threatened to be killed. The complainant/respondent No.2 made a request for protecting them from the committee of Tirupati Bala Ji Temple and take legal action against the culprits. On the registration of FIR, the investigation commenced. 3.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the priest of the temple and running a Gaushala near the Mandir. Gaushala is being run from the last more than 15 years and they are in possession of the said land. He submits that respondent No.2 and his father are colonizers and they wanted to illegally possess the land of Gaushala. He has submitted that respondent No.2 and his father did not have any proof of ownership of this land. Hence in order to fulfill their malafide motives, they forcibly entered into the premises of the temple and started giving abuses to Mahant and Pujaris. With regard to the incident having taken place on 06.08.2023, the matter was reported to the police praying for taking the legal action. He has submitted that the petitioner filed a representation dated 07.08.

2023 against the greedy persons for which respondent No.2 apologized to the Mahant for their illegal acts, however thereafter they again started threatening the petitioner. He has submitted that the police under the pressure of respondent No.2/complainant had registered the present FIR. He has submitted that the petitioner has been granted bail in the same. He submits that from the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apparent that the FIR has been registered with an ulterior motive and thus, the prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. He has thus submitted that the FIR deserves to be quashed.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is apparent that complainant/respondent No.2 has registered the impugned FIR on the basis of allegations made therein. The investigation has been completed and the challan has been presented before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as evident from the case are totally the disputed question of facts which can be appreciated only on the basis of the evidence to be led during the trial.

 

  



 
 

 

      

   

  







  

  

   



  !



 

  

   " # 

 

         



  

 

   

$ 

  

   !"  #$  %% &&'(







  

   



  

 

%&'#

 " #

  

    

    

    &

  

 "   #$  ) '

&(  ()





 



   

 

 

 



      



 

 !  "



 

 #  $%

  

 &

 

  

  

    

   



   



   

   

'  &   (

 

  

 

  &  

            

 )              (

    

   (  

 



 * +,
-



( 

 (   

(  & 



      

  

 (       (   



  +,-





 (  



(

& & ( 

./     )

   &  '       

   #  0"+,

      1  





#  00+,

 +2,-

  

( 

./(   

     

 (  

((

  (   

 

  +$,-





./    )

       3)

  &    (

 

          1  

   (

 #  00+,

 +0,-



( 

./( 



 

  (





              

  '

 

         



 

  +",-

   



  







  ! + 

( 

   , 

      



 4

  



  ! &    



  +5,-

( 

(   



 (   4 

 

   (             (   



 

  

   (  

   6

 * 

 

  

    !

     



   " 

    





  !

 

  

 

#

   

  !

  

  "   

 



 

 9.

Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE 13.08.2024 rittu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No