Munish Jindal and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Accused Munish Jindal and his father Amrit Lal Jindal have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No. 153 dated 09.06.2009 (Annexure P-3), u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short-IPC), registered at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur. It is alleged in the FIR that the complainant and her sister Madhu Bala had share in property mentioned in the FIR i.e. four houses, 1-1/2 shops and 7 acres land, besides other property falling to their share, but complainant''s uncle - petitioner No. 2 and his son have taken the share of the complainant party in the said property. Complainant''s father Raghbir Chand being deaf and dumb by birth, and having died in the year 2003, could not claim his right being deaf and dumb. Petitioners have misappropriated the property of the complainant party. Petitioner No. 2 has even sold one of the houses.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that complainant lodged this FIR after having lost in the Civil Court, and therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant are abuse of process of law. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents contended that the civil suit related to some other property and not to the property mentioned in the FIR. It was also contended that challan has already been presented in the Court.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions.

Complainant and her sister Madhu Bala and their father Raghbir Chand had filed suit against petitioner No. 2 in the year 1999. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure P-1). First Civil Appeal preferred by plaintiffs of the said suit was dismissed in default vide order dated 08.11.2006 (Annexure P-2). More than 2-1/2 years thereafter, the instant FIR was lodged. Description of the agricultural land, mentioned in the FIR, have-not been given, and therefore, it cannot be said that the said land is different from the land involved in the suit. However, even assuming that the property mentioned in the FIR is different from the property mentioned in the suit, there is no explanation why the property mentioned in the FIR was also not included in the suit. Even otherwise, a bare reading of the impugned FIR reveals that the dispute is civil in nature. Complainant is claiming share in the property. The said claim of the complainant can be adjudicated by the Civil Court. Civil dispute is being given colour of criminal offence. This tendency has to be deprecated. In fact, the complainant party, having lost in civil suit, may be regarding some other property, has resorted to this coercive action of lodging FIR.

Even otherwise, ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not made out from the averments of the. FIR. The complainant party has not been induced by the petitioners/accused to deliver any property to any person or to do any other act mentioned in Section 420 IPC. Thus, even taking the averments made in the FIR at face value, no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out. Consequently, prosecution of the petitioners would be abuse of process of law. They cannot be made to suffer the ordeal of criminal trial. Mere presentation of challan would not debar the petitioners from seeking quashing of FIR, when no offence is made out from the averments made in the FIR. For the reasons aforesaid, I allow this petition and quash the impugned FIR No. 153 dated 09.06.2009 (Annexure P-3), u/s 420 IPC, registered at Police Station City Sangrur, District Sangrur, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.