Dismissed

Tanvir Singh v. Ut of Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jan 2013CRM-M/159/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR for cheating, the court held that despite the petitioner not being the owner, he was the aggrieved party because his action of deceiving a subtenant altered the complainant-tenant relationship, making the FIR maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the FIR was dismissed; miscellaneous application allowed.

Tanvir Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 159 of 2013

¶2

----1--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 159 of 2013 Date of decision. 17.01.2013

Tanvir Singh

....... Petitioner

Versus

Union Territory, Chandigarh

¶9

.......Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

Present:Mr. Vivek Kathuria,Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶13

Crl. Misc. No.3159 of 2013

¶14

Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for.

¶15

Crl. Misc. No.M-159 of 2013

¶16

Tanvir Singh, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 591 dated 24.12.2012 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh, for an offence punishable under sections 419 and 420 IPC.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M- 159 of 2013 ----2--

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person in this case. According to him, the complaint should have been filed by Gurpreet Singh, the subtenant. According to him, the complaint made by Navdeep Sharma, the complainant deserves to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Md. Ibrahim and ors. State of Bihar and another 2010(2) Crl.L.J., 2223 . It was a case where accused sold the property of another person claiming himself to be owner thereof. The FIR lodged by the owner under section 420 IPC was quashed holding that it was the purchaser who was cheated and not the owner of the property.

¶19

The question before the court is as to whether the complainant Navdeep Sharma is aggrieved in any way by the act of the petitioner. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant over ground floor of SCO no.86, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh. On request of the petitioner, the complainant permitted him to sublet the front portion of the ground floor to any other party. Tanvir Singh, the petitioner sublet the ground floor of the said property to Gurpreet Singh claiming himself to be owner of the property.

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M- 159 of 2013

¶21

----3--

¶22

It is a case where Gurpreet Singh has got possession of the ground floor. It makes no difference to him that he got the possession thereof as a tenant or sub tenant. At least he has a right to enjoy the possession of the property against payment of rent. The position of the complainant/owner qua Gurpreet Singh has been changed by the petitioner and this way the complainant/owner is the aggrieved party in this case and complaint from him is maintainable and is not liable to be quashed. These facts clearly distinguish the case in hand from the case in Md. Ibrahim and ors.' case supra . In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to quash the FIR in question. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶23

January 17, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE

Tanvir Singh v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanvir Singh v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Rani and Another Vs Gagandeep Kaur @ Pinki

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Pardhan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Bhim Singh & Ors. Vs Chetna & Anr.

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.