Allowed

Harvail Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Dec 2022CRM-M/30811/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of FIR alleged to be collaterally registered to evict daughter from house in a civil dispute. Court observed dispute was family/civil, complainant deceased, civil suit settled, and trial pending. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

FIR No.212 dated 24.03.2013 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 447, 448, 511, 380, 506 and 120-B IPC and all consequential proceedings against petitioners quashed.

Harvail Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

201 CRM-M-30811-2015 Date of Decision: 16.12.2022

¶3

Harvail Singh and Others …Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Haryana and Another …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶7

Present:Mr. Chander Shekhar, Advocate, and Mr. Manmohan Saroop, Advocate, for the petitioners

¶8

Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana

¶9

¶10

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶11

The petitioners through instant petition under section 482

¶12

Cr.P.C. are seeking quashing of FIR No.212 dated 24.03.2013 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 148, 149, 323, 447, 448, 511, 380, 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Thanesar city, District Kurukshetra along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that daughter of Harvail Singh-petitioner No.1 got married with Lakhvir Kumar son of Raghbir Kumar, resident of House No.1679, Ward No.18, Kailash Nagar, Kurukshetra. The marriage was solemnized on 15.01.2011. After marriage, daughter of the petitioner started staying in the aforestated house which was registered in the name of Saroj Bala- Tai Ji of husband of daughter of petitioner. Saroj Bala along with her husband was staying out of country and she came back to India in January 2013 and sold her house to respondent No.2. The fact of sale of house was not in the knowledge of daughter of the petitioner, thus, she continued to stay in the aforesaid house. The alleged purchaser of

¶14

MOHIT KUMAR the house attempted to take possession of aforesaid house and 2022.12.16 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶15

CRM-M-30811-2015

¶16

-2-

¶17

petitioners objected to action of the respondent No.2 which resulted into registration of impugned FIR.

¶18

A civil suit for permanent injunction qua aforesaid house was filed and daughter of the petitioner compromised the matter with alleged buyer i.e. wife of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 who is complainant in the FIR has already passed away. The petitioner No.3 has also passed away. The house in question has already been handed over to wife of respondent No.2.

¶19

Learned State counsel on being confronted with aforestated facts does not dispute the factual position and concedes that dispute was on account of possession of the house in question.

¶20

On the last date i.e. 01.12.2022, matter was adjourned only on account of non-appearance of counsel for respondent No.2.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has informed the Court that on the last date as well as today he called Mr. Tarun Dhingra, Advocate for respondent No.2 and inspite of assurance to appear, he has not appeared to assist the Court.

¶22

The Court is left with no other option except to adjudicate the present petition because it is pending since 2015.

¶23

The dispute between the parties was purely a civil as well family dispute and FIR came to be registered just to get house in question evicted from the daughter of the petitioner. It is apt to notice that daughter of petitioner who was having possession of the house in question and was further party to civil litigation was not implicated in

¶24

MOHIT KUMAR 2022.12.16 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶25

CRM-M-30811-2015

¶26

-3-

¶27

the FIR. The daughter of the petitioner has already evicted the house and settled the dispute with the complainant. Non-appearance of counsel of respondent No.2 indicates that they have no grievance and have lost interest to pursue the matter.

¶28

In view of the fact that matter is primarily civil in nature; daughter of petitioner has already evicted the house; the petitioner No.3 as well as complainant has already passed away; trial is pending since 2013, thus petitioners are facing protracted trial; the matter qua possession of house stands settled and no injury was caused to the complainant who is stated to have passed away, the present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. FIR No.212 dated 24.03.2013 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 148, 149, 323, 447, 448, 511, 380, 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioners.

¶29

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶30

16.12.2022 Mohit Kumar

¶31

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶32

MOHIT KUMAR 2022.12.16 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Harvail Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harvail Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohitashav Tiwari Vs State of Haryana

Jagga Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Neena Goyal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Anjali Kumari @ Anju Bala Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mehar Chand Vs State of Punjab and Others

Kamaljeet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.