Single judge court quashed FIR alleging trespass and theft lodged by in-laws against daughter-in-law amidst pending civil suits regarding house possession, holding allegations did not disclose cognizable offence and amounted to abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.
FIR No.318 dated 16.7.2003 and all subsequent proceedings quashed.
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.
-1-
Criminal Misc. No.65899-M of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.65899-M of 2005 Date of Decision:05.02.2009
Paramjit Kaur and another
.....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Union Territory, Chandigarh and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rampal Verma, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Mr. S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2 - complainant.
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This petition has been moved by Paramjit Kaur as well as Parvinder Singh alias Binder under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.318 dated 16.7.2003 registered at Police Station Sector-17, Chandigarh under Section 448 of IPC and subsequently added offences under Sections 380, 451 and 452 of IPC along with all subsequent proceedings.
The facts in brief are that the complainant is father-in-law of Paramjit Kaur- petitioner, who was married to Sukhbir Singh. After marriage, she was brought in the house by the complainant as his daughterin-law. The present FIR is nothing but a counter-blast to the application given by Paramjit Kaur to the police, on the basis of which, inquiry was
-2-
Criminal Misc. No.65899-M of 2005
conducted by Crime against Women Cell and FIR No.518 dated 21.8.2002 was registered with Police Station, Sector-17, Chandigarh under Sections 406, 494, 495 and 498-A of IPC against Sukhbir Singh and his parents i.e. his father Surat Singh and mother Jaswinder Kaur. The challan has been filed against these persons. As per allegations in this F.I.R., the complainant had gone to attend his sick mother on 25.6.2003. When he returned back on 14.7.2003, he found that the room has been occupied by the petitioners. This allegation is false. In fact, on 27.9.2002, a Daily Diary Report No.23 (Annexure P.2) was recorded at the instance of the petitioner Paramjit Kaur at Police Post, Sector-22, Chandigarh. She had also filed a civil suit (Annexure P.3) on 1.10.2002 for permanent injunction restraining the complainant, his wife and his son Sukhbir Singh from interfering in the peaceful possession and utilisation of the house. The complainant and his wife had also filed a civil suit (Annexure P.4) on 24.6.2002 for declaration and injunction restraining the said petitioner and her father from interfering in possession of the house. On 8.7.2002, a Daily Diary Report No.34 (Annexure P.6) was also recorded at Police Station, Sector-17, Chandigarh. On 11.1.2005, the aforesaid suit which was filed by the complainant and his wife, was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.1.2005 Annexure P.7. Since the civil suit filed by the petitioner Paramjit Kaur is pending, therefore, the present FIR is misuse of process of law. Even otherwise, she being the daughter-in-law of the complainant has got the right of maintenance and residence in the house of her husband. Therefore, no offence of theft or trespass is made out against the petitioners. The present FIR has been lodged to harass the petitioner Paramjit Kaur, a helpless lady and her brother Binder. In these premises, FIR No.318 ibid may be
Criminal Misc. No.65899-M of 2005
-3-
quashed along with all subsequent proceedings.
In reply filed by Surat Singh respondent No.2, it has been interalia pleaded that the petitioner herself has admitted the fact of trespassing into the other two rooms on the top floor by taking possession thereof in the absence of the answering respondent. In civil suit filed by her, she has admitted that one room on the top floor is in use and occupation of her alongwith defendants. The other rooms are on rent with different tenants. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners strenuously urged that the allegations in the FIR do not reveal commission of any offence worth mention and that being so, this FIR is liable to be quashed.
To overcome this submission, Mr. Rampal Verma, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh being assisted by Mr. S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate, counsel for the complainant canvassed at the bar that the offence of trespass is prima-facie made out from the allegations in the FIR against the petitioners and thus, there is no ground to quash the FIR.
This contention merits rejection for the reasons to be recorded
hereinafter.
FIR No.318 which is sought to be quashed reads in the following terms:-
“To the SHO Sector 22, Chandigarh. Sub:- Breaking of two locks of two rooms of House No.2821, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. It is submitted that I have four rooms on the Top
Criminal Misc. No.65899-M of 2005
-4-
Floor, where two rooms are rented and one vacant under my possession. The fourth room was possessed by Smt. Paramjit Kaur w/o Sukhbir Singh. On receiving information from village I and my wife went to my native village for attending my sick mother on 25.6.03. My mother expired on 4.7.03. After performing Bhog ceremony on 13.7.03, I came back on 14.7.03. I found that the room extra to her room Smt. Paramjit Kaur and brother Binder Singh had taken with them. Now only one room rented to Mr. Saini is with me, the rest of the Top Floor is forcibly possessed by Smt. Paramjit Kaur. One double bed with bedding and two chairs are also in her possession. I request your honour to take further action in matter, get its possession to me back. With regards. Yours faithfully Surat Singh s/o Chanan Singh H.No.2821/22-C, CHD.”
Primarily, the guidelines laid down for quashing of an FIR need to be noticed. FIR can be quashed when the High Court is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained therein do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations contained in the FIR or the complaint discloses commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the Investigating Agency to complete the investigation without any fatal and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial. It is axiomatic from the above contents of the FIR sought to be quashed that there are no specific allegations that Paramjit Kaur and her brother Binder Singh had
-5-
Criminal Misc. No.65899-M of 2005
illegally or forcibly occupied the extra room attached to her room in the absence of the complainant. There are only allegations that rest of the top floor is forcibly possessed by her. The date on which she did so has not been disclosed. There are also no allegations that the double bed with bedding and two chairs were also stolen away by the petitioners at the back of the complainant. It is apt to be borne in mind that Paramjit Kaurpetitioner is none else, but admittedly the daughter-in-law of the complainant Surat Singh. Annexure P.1 tends to show that FIR No.518 dated 21.8.2002 registered under Sections 406, 494, 495, 498-A of IPC was lodged by Paramjit Kaur alias Parminder Kaur against her husband Sukhbir Singh, her father-in-law Surat Singh, the complainant in the present FIR and her mother-in-law Jaswinder Kaur. Palpably Annexure P.1 preceded FIR No.318 ibid. There are allegations in Annexure P.1 that “I (Paramjit Kaur alias Parminder Kaur petitioner) fear that my in-laws family will send my husband to foreign without allowing me to meet him. Kindly my husband (Sukhbir Singh) may be restrained from going to abroad. I also fear that my parents-in-law after levelling false allegations against me, will implicate me in some false case, so that they may be able to throw me out of this house. I want to live in this house, so that I can take any decision only after meeting my husband and knowing his decision. My parents-in-law and husband be asked not to commit cruelty upon me, so that I may lead peaceful life in this house.” It is discernible from these allegations that she was apprehending the registration of some false case against her at the instance of her in-laws. Ultimately, the present FIR No.318 ibid came into being. In Annexure P.2, copy of DDR lodged by the petitioner Paramjit Kaur, it has been mentioned that “Today in the morning of 27th September, at about 9:45, these persons
-6-
Criminal Misc. No.65899-M of 2005
(referring to her in-laws) harassed me very much. All these three threatened to throw me out of the house, threatened that they will sell the kothi, then where will I live. My husband Sukhbir Singh, mother-in-law Jaswinder Kaur and father-in-law Surat Singh are doing all this to throw me out of the house.” Annexure P.3 is the copy of the plaint of suit filed by Paramjit Kaur against her father-in-law Surat Singh and others for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and utilisation of house No.2821, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh and from alienating, selling and mortgaging the said house. In this plaint, it has been averred that “the house in question is a tripple story house. One drawing/ dining room, one bed room, kitchen etc., are on the ground-floor. One room on the top floor is in the use and occupation of the plaintiff along with the defendants.” If this averment is taken on its face value, the petitioner Paramjit Kaur was already in occupation of one room on the top floor whereas in the present FIR, it has been alleged that the rest of the top floor is forcibly possessed by her. Annexure P.4 is a copy of the plaint of the suit filed by Surat Singh against Paramjit Kaur for declaration to the effect that the defendants have no legal right, title or interest in the properties of the plaintiffs in any manner, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession. As revealed by Annexure P.7, the suit filed by Surat Singh against Paramjit Kaur and another was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.1.2005. Ostensibly, the parties were locked in litigation. To crown it all, FIR sought to be quashed does not disclose the commission of any offence, nor the allegations contained therein constitute any cognizable offence. Rather the same appear to be an abuse of the process of the Court. The same can be
Criminal Misc. No.65899-M of 2005 -7-
prevented by the High Court in the exercise of the provisions as enshrined in Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
In view of the preceding discussion, FIR No.318 ibid. along
with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.
February 05, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE
Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes
3 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR alleging forcible possession of a room by a daughter-in-law causes misuse of process of law amidst pending civil litigation.
Whether allegations in FIR disclose cognizable offence of theft or trespass or merely constitute domestic dispute and civil disagreement.
Whether High Court can quash FIR to prevent abuse of process of court in matrimonial and property possession disputes.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Paramjit Kaur
Parvinder Singh alias Binder
State of Union Territory, Chandigarh
Surat Singh
HARBANS LAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
