Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 9812 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajesh Kumar And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 May, 2024

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                CHANDIGARH

                                                                  CRM-M-60201-2023
                                                           Reserved on : 20.04.2024
                                                  Date of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024

                      Rajesh
                         esh Kumar & Ors                              ...PETITIONERS

                                                 VERSUS

                      State of Punjab & Anr                           ...RESPONDENTS

                      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

                      Present : Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners.

                                     Mr. Athar Ahmad, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
                                     for respondent No. 1.

                                     Respondent No. 2 - Manjit Singh Komal in person.

                                          ****

                      HARKESH MANUJA, J.

By way of present petition filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for q quashing of FIR No. 290 dated

07.11.2019 registered u/ss 167, 420, 468, 471, 467 and 120 120-B B of IPC,

1860 at PS Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana, Punjab as well as report

under Section S 173 Cr.P.C. dated 21.10.2023 submitted qua the

petitioners petitioners.

2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis

of complaint received from respondent No No.2 alleging that the area of

Khasra No. 425,426,574,575 etc. in the official revenue recor record was

declared as streets, drains and roads roads vide Rapat No. 996 dated

17.05.2010 2010 under the order of District Collector Ludhiana and an

Patwari-Baljit Baljit Singh through subsequent report No. No.247 247 dated

26.11.2014 by using his power in an illegal manner, issued a new 26.11.2014,

"fard" to the land mafia by changing records pertaining to this area

under streets, drains and roads. Thereafter, without there being any

other document and without informing the complainant complainant,, he

immediately approved the registration of 632 square yards of land

and transferred it in the name of his partner vide va vasika sika No. 11419

dated 05.12.2014. In this way, land mafia took over the possession of

vacant land of the complainant purchased in 1994 vide registered

sale deeds on the basis of the wrong registry.

2.1 Brief background necessary to understand the present

case is that civil ivil suits were filed on behalf of petitioners as well as on

behalf of respondent No 2 for permanent injunc injunction tion which were

decided by the Civil Judge (Junior unior Division) Ludhiana vide order

dated 30.01.2016 which were decreed in favour of the petitioners. In

appeals, learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana remanded the

matter back by finding it a suit of "Hadd Shikni"

hikni" and not a suit related

to title. It is appropriate to note here that in this suit Patwari - Baljit

Singh appeared as a witness witne and justified the claim of the petitioners

on the basis of rapat No. 247 dated 26.11.2014 26.11.2014.

2.2 Alleging that new report No. 247 dated 26.11.2 26.11.2014 014 was

prepared by the Patwari-Baljit Patwari Singh for extraneous reasons,

abovementioned FIR was registered against him. During

investigation, he made confessional statement that he registered the

transfer and approved the registration of 632 square yards vide

vasika No. 11419 dated 05.12.2014 05.12.2014 on receiving Rs. 2,00,000 2,00,000/-,, in

the chargesheet, some other persons including petitioners were also

arraigned as accused in this FIR. By way of present petition, prayer

has been made for quashing of the FIR as well as the charge sheet.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

present matter relates to civil dispute between the parties regarding

possession of the disputed property which was being given criminal

colour just to pressurize the petitioners to enter into a compromise.

He submitted submit that his contention in this rega regard was substantiated

from the fact that civil cases with respect to this property were also

filed by both the parties claiming the relief of permanent injunction

and the suits were eventually decreed in favour of the petitioners vide

judgment and decree dated ted 30.01.2016 by Civil Court (Jr. Division)

Ludhiana. He further submitted that though vide judgment and

decree dated 28.01.2019 passed by the first Appellate Court, ourt, the

matter was remanded back, however, demarcation report dated

11.12.2019 was in favour of the petitioners.

3.1 Ld. Counsel submitted that from the demarcation report,

claim of the petitioners was duly substantiated, on the other hand,

respondent No.2/ No complainant did not make any claim against the

seller, who sold him the disputed land and o on n the principle of "buyer

beware", respondent No. No 2/ complainant was not entitled to make any

claim against the petitioners. He also submitted that even in the

chargesheet, neither there was any accusation regarding cheating on

the part of the petitioners, nor was there any assertion regarding the

petitioners being the beneficiaries of the act of Patwari - Baljit Singh.

Lastly, he submitted that there was 05 5 years unexplained delay in

lodging the FIR, which also shows that the same was registered just

as a pressure tactic against the petitioners.

4. On the other hand, respondent No 2 appeared in person

and submitted submit that since ince the findings given by the learned trial Court

were dehors the pleadings, first appellate Court rightly remanded the

matter back and in that circumstance, the findings by the trial Court

could not come to the aid of the petitioners petitioners. He further submitted that

since the rapat number 247 dated 26.11.2014 was prepared by the

Patwari-Baljit Baljit Singh at the instance and in collusion with petitioners,

they were rightly arraigned as accused persons by the investigating

agency. Regarding demarcation report, he submitted that its finding, finding

in any case was not final and thus in no way justifies the offences

committed by the petitioners.

4.1 Learned State Counsel adopted the arguments on the

same line to support the FIR and chargesheet.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the paper book.

b I do not find much substance in the

submissions made on behalf of the petitioner petitioners.

6. Once it was held by the learned First Appellate Court that

findings given by the Ld. Trial Court were given on a point which was

not in dispute between the parties, the same cannot come to the

rescue of the petitioners. In this context, relevant observations of the

first appellate Court are reproduced hereunder:

hereunder:-

"15. Above submissions and contentions of both the sides have been considered nsidered and examined in the light of facts and circumstances emerging on record in the evidence adduced viz-a-viz viz the findings returned by the learned lower court in its impugned judgment. Upon doing so, this court finds that the learned trial court has ffailed ailed to consider the controversy involved between the parties in its correct perspective. It has also not approached the entire controversy in a right and appropriate manner in order to decide the same and to return its findings. The suit, earlier in timetime,, filed by plaintiffs/respondents Rajesh Kumar and others, was for permanent injunction asking for the relief of restraining the defendants/appellants Manjit Singh and Sarabjit Singh from interfering in their peaceful possession of the suit property, that has been comprised in particular and specific khasra numbers detailed in the plaint. Thus, their suit for permanent injunction was based on their claim of ownership and possession of the suit property that was comprised in specific khasra numbers and the suit uit property being depicted with specific boundaries in the site plan attached. The other suit, subsequent in time, that has been referred to as civil suit no.2 in the impugned judgment, was filed by the defendants in the prior suit, by way of counter clai claim m while claiming their ownership and possession of the suit property comprised in totally different khasra numbers alongwith specific boundaries. It means both the parties claimed the suit property in their possession claiming the same falling in different khasra numbers. Of course, there was no dispute with regard to the ownership and title of each other over the claimed khasra numbers. It means they were not disputing each other's title and their ownership of khasra numbers alleged. As such, the controversy controver involved in both the suits was a case of demarcation, a 'Hadd shikni case. But, the learned trial court failing to realize that, paid attention to decide the question of their ownership and title while no specific findings could

be returned with regard to the question involved that was of right demarcation and identification of the property. Rather, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is of no meaning as no findings could be given by the trial court if the suit property felll in those khasra numbers that have been differently claimed by the parties or not. ***

16. The approach of the learned trial court in dealing with the matter went wrong because the claimed suit property was falling in specific khasra numbers alleged by the parties differently alongwith the site plans showing specific boundaries that are different from each other. There is rather a specific plea taken by respondents Rajesh Kumar and others in their written statement filed, that the alleged construction wh which ich the appellants/plaintiffs claimed over the suit property, did not relate to the suit property falling in khasra numbers owned by them. Moreover, Ex.D4 report of the Halqa Patwari that was placed reliance upon heavily by the trial court to decide the ma matter, tter, was not actually any demarcation report nor the Halqa Patwari was competent to carry out demarcation in 'hadd shikni' matters as per the rules and instructions of the revenue department. ***

19. Thus, finding the entire judgment and decree having no meaning since not executable also till the property was demarcated and identified, it could not be sustained. Therefore, upon setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, it is felt that both the consolidated suits should be decided afresh by allowing/ allowing/giving giving the parties opportunities to lead further additional evidence, if any and by following the procedure laid down above in the High Court Rules and Orders VolumeVolume-I,I, i.e. by way of appointment of Local Commissioner, if desired desired...."

7. In view of the above observations made by the first

appellate Court, Court when the findings of Civil Court were not related to

the matter contested by the parties and not pertinent to the dispute in

concern, those could not be made applicable in this case. A

Constitution nstitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Iqbal Singh

Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah", Marwah", reported as (2005) 4 SCC 370,

held that there is neither any statutory provision nor any legal

principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated

as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided

on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. Relevant para from the

same is reproduced hereunder:-

hereunder:

"24. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of ffindings indings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire tire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both ththe e cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. ***"

8. Even the possession of respond respondent No.2 2 on the land

described by him in his plaint has not been denied by the petitioners

as well. In In the Regular Second Appeal filed before this Court against

the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2019, as recorded in notice of

motion order dated 03.05.2019, petitioners filed an affidavit not to

interfere in possession of respondents over the suit property as fully

described in the plaint of respondents respondents. Relevant part of the same is

reproduced hereunder:-

hereunder:

"Learned counsel for the applicants applicants-appellants appellants has filed affidavit of applicant-appellant appellant no. 4 4-Ashok Ashok and submits that appellants undertake not to interfere in possession of respondents over the suit property as fully described in the

plaint of respondents. He further submits that properties of parties are separate and are not even adjoining, as such, there is no need for any demarcation."

9. The primary grievance of respondent No No.2/ 2/ complainant

while making the complaint was regarding the rapat number 247

dated 26.11.2014, which as per his allegations was prepared in a

fraudulent manner by the concerned patwari - Baljit Singh in collusion

with the e land-grabbers land grabbers so as to usurp his land. During investigation,

the investigating vestigating agency recorded the statement of main accused

patwari - Baljit Singh, who confessed having prepared that rapat after

taking Rs. 2 lakh from the other patwari. Since the petiti petitioners oners were

the direct beneficiaries beneficiar of this act of the main accused, itt cannot be

stated that their inclusion as additional accused in the present case

was without any basis.

10. This is not a case where the offences alleged in the FIR

or charge-sheet charge are not made out from the contents of the FIR.

FIR

Rather, the matter pertains to disputed questions of facts not only in

relation to possession and identification of the disputed property, but

also in relation to the fact whether the alleged registration of this

property in favour of petitioners was caused in a fraudulent manner.

Additionally, there have ha been multiple inquiries providing conflicting

findings which further complicate the matter. Findings s recorded in

demarcation report as well as the delay by respo respondent No.2 2 in

registering the FIR, has to be looked into by the trial court but at this

pre-mature mature stage they do not require undue consideration.

11. In view of the discussion made above, finding no merit in

the present petition, same is hereby dismisse dismissed.

12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also

stand disposed of.

                      07.05.2024
                           .2024                             ( HARKESH MANUJA)
                      sanjay                                      JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Whether reportable ? Yes/No