Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR regarding disputes over a residential plot alleged to be owned by an NRI. The court dismissed the petition, holding that criminal liability for theft and trespass existed alongside civil remedies for possession.
Petition for quashing of FIR dismissed; criminal proceedings allowed to continue.
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.
Crl.Misc. No.M-12788 of 2012 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc. No.M-12788 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 06, 2012
Kuljit Singh and others
...... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Kulbir Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners.
SABINA, J.
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.1 dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 448/380/120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station NRI, District S.B.S.Nagar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under:-
“Sir, the applicant submit and follows that the applicant is resident of village Khankhana PS Sadar Banga, District SBS Nagar. The applicant is a non resident Indian and residing in Germany, along with his family members. The applicant has appointed Joginder Singh s/o Darshan Singh r/o village Balanda, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar, as his General attorney. That the applicant owner of a residential plot measuring 6 marlas situated in the abadi of Village
Crl.Misc. No.M-12788 of 2012 (O&M)
2
Khankhana PS Sadar Banga District S.B.S. Nagar. That accused Mohinder Singh s/o Jawala Singh agreed to purchase the said residential plot measuring 6 marla from the applicant at the rate of Rs.55,000/- per marla. That the applicant had also constructed a garage in the plot in question owned and possessed by him for purpose of parking of vehicle by incurring an expenditure of more than Rs.50,000/- and had fitting the same with iron shutter. That Mohinder Singh accused failed to make payment to the applicant either by way of earnest money or by payment of sale consideration of the plot in question to get the sale deed executed and registered from the applicant came to India 2-3 times from German for the above purpose of executing the sale deed by incurring expenditure in lacs. That accused Mohinder Singh along with his nephew Sukhdev Singh, Sulakhan Singh, Ajaib Singh in the month of April 2010 illegally demolish the garage constructed by the applicant and forcibly and illegally took possession of the plot in question by committing theft of the bricks, as well as the iron shutter and raise boundary wall around the same and are in illegal possession of the plot in question. That accused Mohinder Singh too is a non-resident Indian stationed in United Kingdom and with a view to avoid the payment of sale consideration of the plot in question and the execution of the sale deed in his favour by the applicant, he intentionally did not come to India when the applicant visited India for purpose of executing the sale deed in favour of accused Mohinder Singh despite promise that he will come. The intention of the accused is clear that they want to grab the property of the applicant a NRI and with that and in view, the accused have illegally demolish the garage constructed by the applicant and after committing the theft of the malba/bricks and iron shutter have illegally taken possession of the plot by raising a wall around the same. Presently accused Mohinder Singh is in India and on being asked to pay the sale consideration and to get executed and registered sale deed in his favour or to
Crl.Misc. No.M-12788 of 2012 (O&M)
3
vacate his illegal possession, he threatened the applicant with death. That the applicant earlier moved an application with NRI sabha Jalandhar which was marked for enquiry to your good self and during the pendency of enquiry, a compromise was arrived at and as per the said compromise the sale deed was agreed to be got executed by Mohinder Singh from the applicant on or before 28.02.11 and consequently the said application was ordered to file on 23.12.2010 and a letter to this effect was written by your goodself to the learned Deputy Commissioner, SBS Nagar. Copy of the said letter is attached herewith. On 28.02.11 Joginder Singh attorney of the applicant attended police station NRI SBS Nagar with the sole purpose of executing sale deed in favour of Mohinder Singh accused, but for reason best know to accused Mohinder Singh he intentionally failed to appear to get the sale deed executed on payment of the sale consideration. Copy of the writing marking presence of the applicant in police station NRI SBS Nagar is attached herewith. It may further be submitted here that as per the agreement to sell executed between the applicant and accused Mohinder Singh, accused Mohinder Singh was to pay Rs.50,000/- to the applicant on or before 12.09.10. Copy of the said agreement to sell is attached herewith. That the applicant today has come to the village from Germany and contacted Sulakhan Singh, Ajaib Singh, Jagdev Singh Makhan Singh s/o Teja Singh and Kuljit Singh s/o Makhan Singh and requested them to vacate the possession of the property illegally encroached upon by them. It may be stated here that the applicant again came to India by incurring heavy expenditure with the sole purpose of executing the sale deed in favour of Mohinder Singh Rai, on receiving the sale consideration from him who had come to India recently and on learning about his arrival in India the applicant came to India so that the things are settled once forever. However as stated earlier the modus-operandi of Mohinder Singh Rai is to keep things boiling and he is not interested in settlement of the
Crl.Misc. No.M-12788 of 2012 (O&M)
4
matter and his real intention is to grab the property of the applicant with the help of muscleman by taking undue advantage of the absence of the applicant from India who happens to be a Non-resident Indian settled in Germany along with his family members. Instead of being fair enough in concealing to the request of the applicant to either get the sale deed executed from the applicant regarding the land in question on payment of sale consideration or to vacate the encroachment, the above stated Sulakhan Singh, Ajib Singh, Jagdev Singh, Makhan Singh, sons of Teja Singh and Kuljit Singh son of Makhan Singh who are the close associates and henchmen of Mohinder Singh Rai have started threatening to eliminate the applicant in case he dated to dream of getting the encroachment of the property removed. The applicant is under a great scare and apprehends physical liquidation at the hands of the accused, who are very desperate persons. That in these premises, the accused have a very heinous crime and thus, they deserve to be prosecuted on the criminal side for offence under Sections 420/380/448/427/506/34 IPC, as and when asked to vacate their illegal possession over the plot in question, they are threatening the applicant with dire consequences. It is therefore prayed that a criminal case for the above stated offences may be ordered to be registered against the accused and they may be brought to be registered the accused and they may be brought to book and adequate protection may kindly be provided to the applicant.”
A perusal of the FIR reveals that the complainant is a Non Resident Indian. He is settled in Germany along with his family members. The accused have allegedly demolished the garage constructed by the applicant in April, 2010 and have taken possession of the plot by committing theft of bricks as well as iron shutter and have raised boundary wall around the plot and are thus in illegal possession of the plot in question. Although, the complainant can also
Crl.Misc. No.M-12788 of 2012 (O&M)
5
avail the civil remedy by filing a suit for possession yet the petitioners are also liable for criminal action on account of theft and house trespass. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
July 06, 2012 jt
Kuljit Singh and others
State of Punjab
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
