Meena Chhikara v. State Of Haryana And Others
!"# $%
#&'('$) * * +
Meena Chhikara ...... Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and ors.
...Respondents
, - * . . .
Present:
Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.P. Singh, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
. .
/
*
0!1 The prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS is for quashing of the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2025 (P010) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak and the impugned order dated 21.09.2019 (P08) passed by the SDJM, Rohtak vide which the complaint (P0
7) of the petitioner for investigation and registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the accused/respondents No.2 and 3, has been dismissed.
2.
It is the case of the petitioner0complainant (hereinafter known as the petitioner) that her father had purchased a plot measuring 707 sq. yards from Killa No.330//4/2 for a consideration of Rs.30,000/situated in village Bohar, Tehsil and District Rohtak vide sale deed no. 1926 dated 3.6.1989 from Bishan Singh son of Kure, resident of Village Bohar through
GPA holder Sunil Kumar. The possession of the plot was given to her father on the spot and he constructed four walls on the said plot and fixed a gate on the northern side of the same. The father of the petitioner used to visit the site from time to time and always found the walls and gate intact. Thereafter, he orally gifted this property to the petitioner in the year 2015 as he was suffering from various ailments and thus, he wanted to transfer the property to her. For that purpose, he came to Rohtak to complete the transfer formalities but he was surprised to see that that boundary wall and gate were not in existence on his plot.
Due to this situation, Mahinder Singh0her father visited the office of the Tehsildar for identification of his property and for sanctioning mutation in her favour and for completing other legal formalities required for transfer of property. At that time, he came to know that there was only 11.4 marla land in killa no.330//4/2 and same was also transferred through sale deed no.5437 dated 09.12.1988 by the brother of Bishan Singh0 accused No.2 and Sunil Kumar Goyal0accused no.1 was a signatory on the said sale deed. Thus, he came to know that the accused were well aware about the sale deed no.1926 dated 03.06.1989 and despite that he made false representation to him and induced him to purchase the plot in question and registered sale deed in the year 1989.
Thereafter, she (petitioner) filed several complaints before the Chief Minister whereby an inquiry by SDM, Rohtak was conducted and it was found to be a case of fraud and cheating but no criminal action was taken against the accused persons. She also reported the matter to SP, Rohtak on 17.10.
complaint but no action was taken leading to the filing of the criminal complaint.
3.
Based on the evidence led, the complaint came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak (Annexure P08) with the following observations:0
!"# $ %
% &'( !"#
)
*++
&'( !"#
!"#(%
%
,$
!"#( !"# !"#
$
)
-
!"#( .+ /0 %
!"# . " "0" %
"(
.
//0##1#2
3 *+/4+1*++4+***/4*1**+4**200/4 01 200+40* . //0##1#2
3 !+#( !+#&
.
. +
$ $
-
$
$
$
. $ $
1201+1,/1,"1,+ 1"' ( $
$
.
10,' *$
5
6
4.
The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2025 (P010). The relevant extract of the said order is as under:0 "6
!"#( !"# $
$
)
)1/" *2*++
!"#( .)+ /0 %
742#/ 8
)*2,
0/,*+* !"# .)" "0" %
72/4#/ 85 $
.
///##1#26 '!1)$ 59 :
1,; ; $ $
-
$
$
$
. $ $ -
%
4
10,1+1,/1,"1,+1"' (
(
$
-
3 .
6
5.
Thereafter, the instant petition has been filed challenging the aforementioned order.
6.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts below have erred in not sending the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the FIR. The Courts have not considered in its proper perspective the fact that the property in both the sale deeds was the same. In fact, immovable properties are not identified by Sakni/Ahata No.7 or Sakni/Ahata No.8. The Courts below have erroneously observed that there was no inducement by the accused to deceive the father of the petitioner.
He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
7.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8.
The argument that the complainant ought to have been sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the registration of the FIR is completely fallacious in view of the fact that the case was treated as a complaint case, preliminary evidence recorded and only, thereafter, the complaint came to be dismissed. At this stage, the question of referring the case to the investigating agency for registration of an FIR does not arise. The documents on record would reveal that the description of the properties in both the sale deeds are entirely different. Therefore, it has rightly not been established that the accused persons cheated the father of the petitioner or her.
Interestingly, the recital of the complaint reveals that the father of the petitioner had taken the possession of the property and constructed four walls on the said plot alongwith the gate in the year 1989. It does not stand to reason that the four walls had been demolished and some one else had taken the possession of the property after demolishing the walls and the father of the petitioner only got to know the said fact in the year 2015 when he approached the police. Further, for reasons best known to the petitioner and her father, no civil proceedings have been initiated against the accused and or any other person. This also makes the case of the petitioner highly doubtful.
9.
In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. 10.
The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
#203!04 / +
. .
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No