Jagat Singh vs The State of Punjab

Sarojnei Saksena, J.—The petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing the FIR dated 4.6.1994 (DDR No. 10) registered u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code by Police Station Julkan, District Patiala and consequent proceedings taken hereunder.

The facts of the case are that on 16th April, 1994 petitioner No. 1 filed a civil suit against the Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha, Village Tiwana, Tehsil and District Patiala, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from preventing the plaintiff petitioner from harvesting the crop standing on the disputed land measuring 36 bighas 17 biswas situated in village Tiwana. The plaintiff petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC for the same purpose. On 18.4.1994 an ex-parte order was passed to that effect in favour of the plaintiff petitioner No. 1. Notice was issued to the defendant and this ex-parte injunction order was confirmed on 2.5.1994. The defendant Gram Panchayat filed Appeal No. 148 of 1994 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, which was allowed vide order dated 24.5.1994 and the trial court''s order was set aside holding that possession of the disputed land has already been taken by the Gram Panchayat and it has deposited compensation on 11.4.1994 as ordered by the revenue authorities. The petitioner No. 1 filed Civil Revision No. 237 of 1994 in the High Court. Vide order dated 26.5.1994 status quo with regard to possession as existed on that day was ordered to be maintained.

On 23.4.1994 a police report was lodged on the basis of which the Executive Magistrate holding that there is likelihood of breach of peace with regard to the possession of the disputed land and cutting of standing crop thereon, the Executive Magistrate appointed Naib Tehsildar, Dudhan Sudhan as a receiver. The petitioner No. 1 challenged that order in Crl. M. No. 7438 of 1994 in the High Court on 16.5.1994; notice of motion was issued and operation of the impugned order was stayed.

Petitioner No. 1 filed an application before the Naib Tehsildar, Dudhan Sudhan, Patiala praying that in view of the stay order granted by the High Court he may be permitted to thrash his crop. The Naib Tehsildar called for the report of the Halqa Patwari, who submitted his report on 31.5.1994 admitting that he has not received any such order. The petitioner''s contention is that the sarpanch of the village is influential man. He has got the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner for allegedly committing the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code as in the FIR dated 4.6.1994 it is mentioned that they had thrashed the wheat crop standing on the disputed land on the night of 1st June 1994 and had taken away the crop.

The respondents filed reply to the said petition. It is admitted in the reply that the said suit filed by petitioner No. 1 is pending in the civil court. Ex-parte injunction order passed in favour of petitioner No. 1 was confirmed but later on in appeal that order was quashed, thereafter petitioner No. l filed revision before the High Court and obtained the order maintaining status quo in 145 Cr. P.C. proceedings when the order of appointment of receiver was passed, petitioner No. 1 again moved a petition in the High Court and obtained a stay order. But it is alleged that petitioner No. l has concealed the material facts from the civil court as well as from the High Court. Petitioner No. 1 filed a petition in the court of Collector/Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala (case No. DDP (11) Bhunar/104) against the Gram Panchayat u/s 11 of the Punjab Village Common land (Regulation) Act, 1961 for admitting his ownership over the disputed land while the Gram Panchayat filed a petition u/s 7 of the said Act (Case No. DDP(7) Bhunar-239). Both these petitions were decided by the DDPO, Patiala vide order dated 31st January, 1994. Petitioner Jagat Singh''s petition was rejected and that of the Gram Panchayat was allowed and Jagat Singh was ordered to be dispossessed from the disputed land. Jagat Singh assailing that order by filing Appeal No. 40 of 1994 in the court of Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) Punjab. It was held by the Joint Development Commissioner vide his order dated 11.5.1994 that the possession had already been transferred to the Gram Panchayat on 8.4.1994, compensation has also been deposited by the gram Panchayat, therefore, the order of ''Status quo'' granted on 11.4.1994 does not confer any right to Jagat Singh, hence, the prayer was declined. On 30th March, 1994 the Collector/Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala ordered Tehsildar, Patiala, that order passed on 31st January, 1994 be carried out, if possession of the disputed land is not given it should be given by 16.4.1994, if crop is standing thereon its compensation be fixed and possession be delivered to the Gram panchayat. This order was complied with by the concerned authorities and a report was submitted on 8.4.1994 whereby in the presence of Kanugo Halqa, Patwari Halqa, Patwari Samiti, Chowkidar and other respectables of the village, possession of the disputed land was delivered to the Gram panchayat on the condition that it should pay Rs. 9800/- to petitioner No. 1 Jagat Singh as compensation of the standing crop (because admittedly crop was sown by Jagat Singh). From Annexure R.5 it is evident that on 11.4.1994 the Gram panchayat deposited compensation amount of Rs. 9800/-. In appeal No. 148 of 1994, decided on 24.4.1994, Additional District Judge, Patiala has taken these facts into consideration and held that the possession of the disputed land has already been delivered to the Gram panchayat and it has also deposited the amount of compensation on 11.4.1994, hence, since this date the Gram panchayat shall be deemed to be in possession of the disputed land. The appellant (petitioner No. l) has filed suit on 16.4.1994, hence the trial court''s injunction order under appeal was set aside and the appeal was accepted. Thereafter the Gram Panchayat has auctioned the disputed land and it is given on lease to Satnam Singh in the year 1994.95 as is evident from Annexure R.7. Satnam Singh has deposited Rs. 9100/- on 17.6.1994.

Thus it is evident from the documents produced by the respondents that on 8.4.1994 the possession of the disputed land was delivered to the Gram Panchayat under the orders of the revenue authorities and since it was conditional order on the payment of compensation of Rs. 9800/- Gram Panchayat deposited that amount also on 11.4.1994. Admittedly crop was sown by petitioner No. 1 on the disputed land but after 11.4.1994, after the deposit of compensation amount he had no right to harvest the crop and to dispose it of. On 16.4.1994 petitioner No. l filed civil suit and obtained the various orders as enumerated above.

Both the parties are contending that they are in possession of the disputed land. In the civil suit their rights will be decided but in view of above facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the impugned FIR is groundless or it is an abuse of the process of the court. Petitioner''s learned counsel has relied on Kuldip Singh v. State Punjab 1990(1) RCR 465 to support his contention, but this case is distinguishable on facts. As I have mentioned above in this case the revenue authorities have passed an order for evicting respondent No. 1 from the dis- puted land on 31.1.1994. Thereafter on 8.4.1994 the possession of the disputed land Was symbolically given to the Gram Panchayat on the condition that first of all it will pay the amount of compensation determined at Rs. 9800/-. The Gram Panchayat deposited this amount of compensation on 11.4.1994. As per the impugned FIR thereafter on the night of 1.6.1994 the petitioners harvested the crop standing on the disputed land and admittedly petitioner No. l has sold that crop. These are the distinguishing features of this case from Kuldip Singh''s case (supra).

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the impugned FIR and consequent proceedings taken thereunder against the petitioners amount to abuse of process of the court. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

It is made clear that the observations made above will not effect the rights of the parties in civil and criminal proceedings pending against them.