Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vipin Gupta vs Ut Of Chandigarh And Ors on 4 September, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117383
CRR-2127-2018 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-2127-2018
Date of decision:04.09.2024
Vipin Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
U.T. of Chandigarh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Angad Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Vij, Addl. P.P., U.T. Chandigarh.
None on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 02.05.2017 passed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide which the appeal filed
by the petitioner against the judgment dated 18.04.2016 passed by the Court
of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, vide which respondents No.2 to 6 were
acquitted by the learned trial Court in a criminal case having FIR No.56
dated 05.04.2008 under Sections 448, 451, 380, 506, 427, 120-B IPC, Police
Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Vipin Gupta and
one Jagdish Rai lodged complaint in writing to the effect that Plot No.182
comprised in Khasra No.6/8/1/2 situated in village Dariya, Chandigarh was
previously owned by Smt. Santosh Babbar and she was in its possession
since 1971. Subsequently, she entered into an agreement to sell the same
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117383
CRR-2127-2018 [2]
with Jagdish Rai. At that time, there were 17 rooms in the said property. On
23.09.2007, when Smt. Santosh Babbar went to said plot, she came to know
that respondents No.2 to 6 had demolished the common wall between her
plot and the Gurudwara Sahib and they had taken away the building
material. Then, Smt. Santosh Babbar lodged complaint against the aforesaid
persons, but the police failed to take any action. On the basis of
aforementioned agreement to sell, the sale deed was executed on
17.12.2007. After the execution of the sale deed, complainant along with
Jagdish Rai and Raghunath visited the aforesaid property and on seeing
them, eight persons came there from the said of Gurudwara Sahib and
started inquiring from them and when the complainant told them that they
have purchased the said premises, the aforesaid persons started giving
threats to them and asked them to leave the spot and some other Sevadars of
Gurudwara Sahib armed with swords also came there. On this the
complainant party went away from there, the matter was reported to the
police and the accused persons were called by the police, but police failed to
take any action against them. Again on 28.01.2008, when Jagdish Rai and
Raghunath visited the aforesaid premises, they were again threatened by
Shingara Singh along with two other persons. Again the matter was reported
to the police. Consequently, FIR was registered in this case against
respondents No.2 to 6. On completion of investigation, police presented
challan.
3. Finding a prima facie case, charges under Sections 427, 448,
451 and 120-B IPC were framed against the accused persons to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117383
CRR-2127-2018 [3]
4. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW-1 S.S
Randhawa, Superintendent of Police (Retd.), who being inquiry officer
conducted inquiry on the basis of complaint Ex.P-A and submitted his
report Ex.P-B against the accused persons. PW-2 Ajay Pal Singh, Clerk in
the office of Sub-Registrar, Chandigarh proved registration of sale deed
Ex.PW-2/A dated 17.12.2007 executed by Smt. Santosh Babbar wife of Om
Parkash in favour of Vipin Kumar and Pankaj Gupta. PW-3 Om Parkash,
deposed that the property in question was purchased by him in 1971 and at
that time, there was no Gurudwara Sahib in that area. After getting
permission, he constructed 17 huts in his land. That the accused persons
demolished the boundary wall and two huts illegally in year 2007 on which
he gave complaints in writing to various police authorities. That thereafter,
he sold the property to Vipin Gupta and Pankaj Gupta. PW-4 Inspector
Chiranji Lal, Investigating Officer, who deposed regarding investigation
conducted by him and proved FIR Ex.P-1 and various documents relating to
arrest of the accused persons. PW-5 Jagdish Rai, deposed that he is doing
business of sale of marble in premises in question. He also deposed
regarding the agreement to sell executed by Smt. Santosh Babbar and sale
deed 17.12.2007, which was executed by Smt. Santosh Babbar in favour of
his son Pankaj Gupta and nephew Vipin Gupta. That on 19.12.2007, he
along with other members of his family visited the aforesaid property and at
that time, they were threatened by the accused persons and asked to leave
the spot, when the accused came to know that the said property was
purchased by his son and nephew. The matter was reported to the police, but
no action was taken. He again visited the premises and found common wall
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117383
CRR-2127-2018 [4]
and four rooms were demolished. The matter was again reported to the
police and FIR was registered in the present case against the accused
persons.
5. The evidence of the prosecution was closed by order. The
statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C
wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication.
6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court
acquitted all the accused vide its judgment dated 18.04.2016.
7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant filed appeal which
was also dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh
vide judgment dated 02.05.2017. Being dis-satisfied the
petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition.
8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and counsel
appearing on behalf of U.T. Chandigarh.
9. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it stands
proved on the record that previously, Smt. Santosh Babbar was owner in
possession of premises in question. She and her husband Om Parkash raised
construction of 17 rooms in the said premises and subsequently, the said
premises was purchased by petitioner and his cousin vide sale deed dated
17.12.2007. The execution and registration of the said sale deed is proved
by PW-2 who produced the concerned summoned record. It is further
submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed, the complainant and
his co-vendee came into possession of the aforesaid property being its
owners. That the accused persons intended to grab the said property, they
being residing in the adjoining Gurudwara Sahib. The accused persons
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117383
CRR-2127-2018 [5]
demolished the boundary wall and some part of the construction existing at
the spot by trespassing into the aforesaid property owned and possessed by
the complainant and Pankaj Gupta. The accused also removed the
construction material lying there. It has been further contended that as and
when, the complainant party visited the aforesaid property, the accused
persons used to threaten them and stop them from entering the said
property. The matter was reported to police and PW-1 enquired into the
matter and gave his report Ex.PB against the accused persons. It has been
further argued that the case of prosecution stands fully proved against the
accused persons, who hatched conspiracy to grab the property belonging to
the complainant and co-vendee Pankaj Gupta. It has been further contended
that the impugned judgments passed by the learned trial Court and Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh deserve to be set aside and
respondents No.2 to 6 be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, as per
law.
10. The counsel appearing on behalf of U.T. also argued supported
the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner.
11. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner.
12. Admittedly, petitioner/complainant did not appear in the
witness box during trial, despite being fully aware of the pendency of the
trial. PW-1 who conducted inquiry, failed to disclose the area of land owned
by the complainant party and he was also not aware about the area of land
on which Gurudwara Sahib was constructed. PW-1 also admitted that
visibly nothing came on record regarding theft of any article and or any
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117383
CRR-2127-2018 [6]
damage etc. caused to the property. PW-4 stated that he cannot say if there
was any land in between Gurudwara Sahib and the land of complainant. He
further deposed that he does not know as to who was the owner of the land
stated to be encroached, on the day of occurrence. PW-5 Jagdish Rai
admitted in his deposition that demolished rooms are not visible in
photographs Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4. He also admitted that no photographs of
demolished wall and rooms are available on the record. PW-3 also made
oral statement and failed to produce any corroborative evidence. PW-2 an
official witness simply produced the summon record regarding execution
and registration of sale deed dated 17.12.2007.
13. This Court do not find any perversity in the findings recorded
by the learned trial Court and the Court of Additional Sessions Judge and
the law presume double presumption in favour of the accused after a due
acquittal by the trial Court.
14. In the light of the above discussion, the present revision
petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.
04.09.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
