Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjit Bawa vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 July, 2023
CRM-M-25427-2023 2023:PHHC:083668
110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-25427-2023
Date of Decision: 04.07.2023
Gurjit Bawa ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Shubham Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Petition herein is for quashing FIR No.4 dated 03.02.2019,
under Sections 448, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station NRI Kapurthala.
2. Notice of motion.
3. On the asking of Court, Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Additional Advocate
General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and
opposes the petition.
4. Succinct facts as pleaded in the petition are that Kishan Kishore
Sharma, father of complainant Abhishek Sharma had leased out his shop
situated at Mohalla Sukhjit Nagar, Pandit Devi Dyal Market, Kapurthala,
Punjab vide rent deed dated 23.10.1996 (Annexure P-1) to one Narender
ASHISH
2023.07.11 12:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this judgment/order
CRM-M-25427-2023 2023:PHHC:083668
Kalia. On 09.10.2017, father of complainant expired, leaving behind the
complainant and his sister. However, Narender Kalia, continued to deposit
the rent of the said shop in the account of father of complainant. On
20.05.2018, Narender Kalia went to U.S.A to work there. Said shop was
being run as mobile repair electrical shop by Narender Kalia but he left it in
the hands of present petitioner as its caretaker. No business was carried out
by the present petitioner in the said premises.
4.1. Complainant after coming to know that Narender Kalia has left
and went abroad, started to pressurize the petitioner to hand over the
possession of shop to him stating that after the death of his father it was
registered in his name vide registered deed dated 27.02.2018. Petitioner
later on came to know that the complainant had given a complaint in the
NRI Wing, Jalandhar on 30.11.2018 against the petitioner stating that he was
unlawfully occupying the shop. However, Narender Kalia, on the other
hand approached the Ld. Civil Court vide Civil Suit No.633 of 2018 seeking
an injunction restraining the complainant from taking forcible possession of
the said shop in question.
4.2. Ld. Civil Court vide order dated 21.12.2018 (Annexure P-6)
allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, whereby it was
ordered that plaintiff/Narender Kalia shall not be dispossessed other than
with due process of law.
4.3. Subsequently, the present complainant on 09.01.2019, filed
petition (Annexure P-7) under Section 24 of Punjab Rent Act, 1995, for
ejectment of Narender Kalia, before the Ld. Rent Controller, Kapurthala.
ASHISH
2023.07.11 12:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this judgment/order
CRM-M-25427-2023 2023:PHHC:083668
Said petition was filed only against Narender Kalia and that the petitioner
was not, at any stage, impleaded as party to the said petition.
4.4. After filing of the said rent petition, the complainant
subsequently got the aforesaid FIR registered without disclosing the
pendency of present proceedings. Petitioner cooperated in the investigation
of the said complaint. Pursuant thereto, challan (Annexure P-9) was filed on
25.11.2019. Petitioner is admitted on bail by Ld. Trial Court itself.
Subsequently, the charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections
448 and 120-B IPC by Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 03.01.2020
(Annexure P-11).
5. Learned counsel for petitioner would argue that possession of
the said premises is still with the tenant - Narender Kalia and not the
complainant-landlord. Therefore, no criminal case is made out against the
petitioner under Sections 448 and 120-B IPC and that registration of FIR is
merely misuse of process of law.
6. In the course of hearing, learned State counsel upon instructions
from ASI Gurmail Singh submits that criminal trial is likely to soon get over
as out of 9 witnesses 6 have already been examined.
7. Being so, I am of the view that it is not appropriate to quash
FIR at this advanced stage of trial.
8. Dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this
petition shall not come in the way of petitioner to take defense before Ld.
Trial Court as has been taken before this Court.
ASHISH
2023.07.11 12:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this judgment/order
CRM-M-25427-2023 2023:PHHC:083668
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( ARUN MONGA )
JUDGE
July 04, 2023
ashish
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
ASHISH
2023.07.11 12:17
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this judgment/order
