Sardool Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing of FIR No. 92 dated 23.05.2010, under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 511 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC in short), registered at Police Station Jandiala Guru, Amritsar (Annexure P-7) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no. 4 had executed an agreement to sell the land in question in favour of petitioner no. 1 Sardool Singh. Entire sale consideration was received by respondent no. 4 vide receipt (Annexure P-3) and thereafter sale-deed (Annexure P-5) was executed qua the land in question in favour of petitioner no. 1 through Court. Hence, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners, as they were in possession of the land in question as owners.

Learned State counsel on the other hand has opposed the petition.

None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that respondent no. 4 was owner of the land in question measuring 2 kanals, bearing khasra no. 410. On 21.05.2010, petitioners armed with weapons came to the spot on a tractor with a view to take possession of the land and threatened the complainant. While leaving, the petitioners damaged the boundary-line of the land in question and the standing maize crop.

It has been held in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, the Apex Court has held as under:-

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr. P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

In the present case, as per FIR, the case of respondent no. 4, is that he was the owner of the land in question. However, a perusal of sale-deed (Annexure P-5) reveals that the same was executed qua the land in question measuring 2 kanals, bearing khasra no. 410 in favour of petitioner no. 1 Sardool Singh through Court on 11.11.2009. A perusal of sale-deed further reveals that vendor had already received the total sale consideration from the purchaser/decree holder and the possession of the land in question had also been handed over to petitioner no. 1. Since petitioner no. 1 was in possession of the land in question as owner on the alleged day of occurrence, no criminal offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 92 dated 23.05.2010, under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 511 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Jandiala Guru, Amritsar (Annexure P-7) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.