Malkiat Singh vs State of Punjab

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

Malkiat Singh and others by way of filling the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 132 dated 31.8.1997, Annexure P12 registered under Sections 452/506/379/148/149 IPC read with section 7 of Protection of Civil Rights Act.

The case set up by the petitioners is that they are in occupation of land measuring 67 kanals 9 marlas which form part of khasra Nos. 3009, 3012 and 3015 situated in Kapurthala Town. Earlier this land was in possession of one Gian Nath who was running a Dera on 2 kanals out of the said land which falls in khasra No. 3014 belonging to Punjab Wakf Board. After the death of Gian Nath, his Chela Puran Nath entered into agreement with Malkiat Singh petitioner No. 1 on March 2, 1993 (Annexure P1). The possession of the land was handed over to petitioner No. 1 by Puran Nath after receiving a sum of Rs. 1 lac. The petitioner No. 1 paid lease money to the Punjab Wakf Board from the year 199596 to 199697 vide receipts Annexures P2 to P5. The petitioners had also installed a tubewell, constructed a kotha and raised a boundary wall on one and half kanals of land around the said kotha. The land was very valuable so certain influential persons like the Local Municipal Councillor Thakur Dass, had tried to interfere in the peaceful possession of the land which resulted into the filing of the Civil Suit No. 211 of 3.8.1994 for permanent injunction restraining him not to dispossess the petitioners illegally and forcibly. Stay was granted in their favour on August 4, 1994 and the suit was decreed on 7.12.1995, vide Annexure P6.

Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were also initiated. In the kalendra report dated 15.7.1995, the police authorities specifically mentioned that petitioner No. 1 was in possession and Thakur Dass etc. were trying to take possession of the land and civil proceedings were also pending between the parties. Inspite of that receiver was appointed vide order dated 27.2.96/8.4.96, Annexure P9. The order was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and thereafter approached this Court in Crl.M. No. 10852M of 1996 which was allowed and proceedings initiated u/s 145 Cr.P.C. were quashed. The petitioner thereafter started cultivating the land. Certain eucalyptus trees growing in khasra No. 3013 were uprooted on 28/29.8.1997. When the petitioner tried to lift these eucalyptus trees, the disciples of the Dera interfered and the petitioner approached the local police on 29.8.1997 vide Annexure P10. The application was marked by SI Chhaju Ram to ASI Ram Sarup for necessary action who summoned the main Sewadar of the Dera namely Gazi/Ganzi Nath on 29.8.1997 and a compromise was got effected between the parties wherein it was agreed that the Saints of Dera Baba Gian Nath would not interfere with the property of the petitioner. Annexure P11 is the copy of the compromise.

It is further averred in the petition that on August 31, 1997 inspite of the complaint lodged by the petitioner Annexure P10 and compromise Annexure P11, the residents of the Dera, in retaliation got a false case registered at the instigation of Local Municipal Councillor Thakur Dass which is Annexure P12. The petitioners were therefore arrested but released on bail on 4.9.1997 and during the period of detention, the boundary wall of the `kotha'' around the area of 11/2 kanal was demolished by the people of the locality. On 2.9.1997 some friends of the petitioners, who had come to visit them at the kotha got registered FIR No. 135 under sections 452/379/506/380/427/323/148 and 149 IPC. It is therefore, pleaded that FIR Annexure P12 dated August 31, 1997 and all consequential proceedings arising thereon are liable to be quashed, mainly on the ground that it is the petitioners who had approached the police on 29.8.1997 and that the petitioners had been continuously in possession of the land in question and that no offence under sections 452 and 379 IPC is made out because the petitioners are in possession of the land.

The respondent in the written reply to the petition has refuted the allegations and pleaded inter alia, that all the allegations made in the application are wrong. In fact Puran Nath Chela Guru Gian Nath, Balmik Mandir, Gian Ashram, Mohalla Mehtabgarh, Kapurthala had presented the application before SDM, Kapurthala under section 145 Cr.P.C. and the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. Investigation in FIR No. 132 dated 31.8.1997 has also been completed and the case is pending before the trial court for trial. The petitioners are also not in possession of the property in dispute. In fact, there are specific allegations against them.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered the rival contentions set out in the petition as well as in the reply.

From the narration of the facts as above, it is clear that impugned FIR No. 132 dated 31.8.1997 Annexure P12 was registered on the statement of the complainant, and that on the basis of complaint made on behalf of the petitioners another FIR No. 135 under sections 452/379/506/380/427/323/148 and 149 IPC, dated 2.9.1997, Annexure P3 was registered. There are specific averments/allegations contained in both the FIRs. Thus without affording parties an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claims it cannot be ascertained as to which FIR out of the two is correct i.e. whether the allegations contained in these FIRs are true or false. It is a matter which requires thorough investigation and that can be done only if evidence is led in respect of the allegations contained therein. Exercise of powers under section 482 Cr. P.C is to be used sparingly and cautiously and it is a case where the plea as set up in the petition can be taken up by the petitioner during the trial or at the time of framing of the charge by the trial court. In case the charge has not been framed so far, the petitioners will be at liberty to take up all the pleas which are available to them before the trial Court at the relevant time.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.