In two criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court observed that Section 511 IPC is not attracted alongside Section 447 IPC. The court noted pending civil litigation and observations before the court regarding the relation between the offences and the civil dispute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-20785 of 2008
Date of decision: 21st April, 2009
Balwinder Kaur and another
… Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
… Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for the State.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
By this common order, two petitions bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-20785 of 2008 preferred by Balwinder Kaur and Rajnit Singh, and Criminal Misc. No. M-23941 of 2008 preferred by Bawa Singh, will be decided together.
Both the above petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR No. 144 dated 30.06.2008 registered at Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura, District Faridkot under Sections 447, 506, 511, 148, 149 IPC.
Mr. Harinder Sharma appearing for the petitioners has read the FIR and has stated that the only dispute between the accused and complainant is regarding the possession over the land. It is stated that the case registered against the petitioner is for trespass into the land, which is in dispute. Counsel has further submitted that Section 511 IPC has also been added by the investigating agency on the ground that an attempt was
2
Criminal Misc. No. M-20785 of 2008
made to trespass into the land. Counsel has stated that trespass, in itself, is offence. There can be no offence regarding preparation of the trespass, therefore, in the present case, no offence of trespass has been committed.
A perusal of the FIR shows that it is alleged that Balwinder Kaur had sought to take possession of the land and had threatened to kill the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegation attracting Section 506 IPC cannot be accepted as the same has been levelled only due to pendency of civil litigation between the parties.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General Punjab has submitted that investigation is still in progress. No challan has been presented.
Mr. Harinder Sharma has relied upon order (Annexure P-2) to show that petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. M-23941 of 2008 filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the complainant party and order of status quo was passed. Counsel has further submitted that Local Commissioner had submitted a report (Annexure P-3). He has referred to the report of Local Commissioner to state that Local Commissioner came to the conclusion that the land was cultivated by Bawa Singh. Counsel has further submitted that Harbhajan Singh belonging to the complainant party has also filed a suit against Bawa Singh petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. M- 23941 of 2008 and against Balwinder Kaur petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. M-20785 of 2008 and had sought injunction. The suit was subsequently withdrawn. It has further been submitted that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were also initiated between the parties.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG Punjab has stated that since investigation is in progress, documents relied by the petitioners shall be taken into consideration, before the Investigating Officer arrives at a conclusion whether any offence is made out or not. Counsel for the State has further stated that Investigating Officer shall also take into
3
Criminal Misc. No. M-20785 of 2008
consideration the observations of this Court that Section 511 IPC is not attracted along with the offence under Section 447 IPC.
With these observations, present two petitions are disposed
off.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE
April 21, 2009 rps
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 511 IPC (attempt) attracts when there is no consummated offence of trespass under Section 447 IPC.
Whether allegations under Section 506 IPC for threatening to kill can be accepted as being levelled only due to pendency of civil litigation regarding land possession.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Balwinder Kaur
Rajnit Singh
Bawa Singh
State of Punjab
Kanwalsingh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
