[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jhabar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 18 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M)
Reserved On: 21.11.2025
Date of Decision:18.12.2025
Uploaded On: 19.12.2025
Jhabar and others .....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another .....Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Vikas Yadav, Advocate and
Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Aniket Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.
1. The instant Petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for
seeking quashing of FIR No. 63 dated l5.03.2022 registered under Section
120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at P.S. Nangal Chaudhary, District
Mahendergarh alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
1 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -2-
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on an application
given by the complainant Jagdish, son of Sultan Singh, resident of village
Nangal Dargu, Tehsil Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh, who stated
that he is a co-sharer in the estate of Ganpat son of Gobinda (since deceased).
The deceased Ganpat Ram was survived by three daughters namely Mishrali,
Manohari Devi and Gyarsi and two sons, Mehru and Jhabar. Mishrali was
married to Moola Ram of village Kutharia. Manohari Devi was first married
to Chitter of village Mehmadpur, Rajasthan, and after his demise, contracted
a second marriage with Chandgi Ram, with whom she has two sons and
presently resides in Ward No. 4, Bansoor, District Alwar. Gyarsi Devi was
married to the real brother of Chitter. The applicant maintains that Manohari
Devi is alive, a fact supported by a certificate dated 31.01.2022 issued by the
Municipal Council, Bansoor. According to the complainant, the accused
persons, acting in collusion and with a common intention, fraudulently
procured mutation No. 2222 dated 11.12.2012 by falsely declaring Manohari
Devi as deceased, with the dishonest intention of securing wrongful gain for
themselves and causing corresponding loss to other co-sharers. It is alleged
that Mehru, Jhabar, Mishrali and Gyarsi had succession entered in their favour
on the basis of such misrepresentation. It is also alleged that accused No. 11,
Mahender Singh, the then Patwari, knowingly facilitated and sanctioned the
fraudulent mutation, affixing his signature to mutation No. 2222 with the
intent to support the illegal acts of the other accused and to prejudice the rights
of lawful co-sharers. The complainant stated that since Manohari Devi is alive
and has children of her own, no mutation on the basis of her alleged death
2 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -3-
could legally have been entered. He further alleges that Mishrali Devi
executed a Will in favour of the sons of Jhabar and Mehru, although they were
entitled only to a 1/10th share each, later revised to 1/8th, and that the
beneficiaries have thereby taken possession of land far exceeding their lawful
entitlement through fraudulent means. Thus, the complainant submitted that
despite knowing that Manohari Devi was alive, the accused persons conspired
to secure mutation No. 2222 dated 11.12.2012 and, in doing so, committed
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code. On these allegations, the applicant sought registration of
an FIR against all accused persons and prayed for strict legal action to be
initiated against them.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that both the
respondent No. 3-Manohari Devi and all the accused persons (petitioners
herein) trace their lineage to a common ancestor. As per the jamabandi, out of
a total holding of 78 kanals and 5 marlas, the petitioners or their immediate
predecessors-in-interest were owners of half share, i.e., 39 kanals and 2.5
marlas. It is submitted that a proper appreciation of the pedigree table and the
succession line undisputedly establishes that the complainant-respondent
No.2, Jagdish, has no concern whatsoever with the share of his uncle (tau)
Ganpat, which devolved exclusively upon Ganpat's five children, in relation
to which the present FIR has been lodged. He further contends that the
complainant lacks locus standi to initiate the impugned criminal proceedings,
as the dispute, if any, pertains solely to the legal heirs of Ganpat. The
petitioner further submits that the proceedings are wholly misconceived and
3 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -4-
devoid of substance unless Manohari, daughter of Ganpat, who is alleged to
have been falsely shown as deceased, herself raises any grievance before the
competent authorities and, at best, the matter constitutes a familial dispute
among brothers and sisters and does not warrant the initiation of criminal
prosecution at the instance of a third party without any legal standing.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR names
four accused persons, out of whom Mishrali had passed away in 2018 and
Mohru @ Mehar Singh had also expired in the year 2020. Consequently, the
share of Manohari, which is stated to have devolved upon these two deceased
siblings, now stands legally succeeded by their respective children. It is
argued that mutation No. 2222 dated 11.12.2000 (incorrectly recorded in the
FIR as 11.12.2012) bears no nexus whatsoever to any alleged culpability on
the part of petitioners No. 3 to 10 or Madan Lal, as the mutation took place
during the lifetime of the original heirs and long before the present petitioners
inherited the property. Similarly, counsel submits that since Mishrali expired
in 2018, the share holding that devolved upon her under mutation No. 2222
dated 11.12.2000 (again wrongly stated in the FIR as 11.12.2012) has, after
her death, lawfully passed to petitioners No. 3 to 10. Therefore, no criminal
liability can be attributed to them in respect of a mutation effected nearly two
decades earlier, long before they came into possession of the property by
inheritance. It is thus contended that the FIR is fundamentally misconceived
against the petitioners.
5. The petitioner vehemently contends that the impugned FIR is a
retaliatory measure and has been lodged as a counterblast to civil proceedings
4 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -5-
initiated earlier by the petitioners. It is submitted that a residential property
situated in village Nangal Dargu was originally owned by Sheoji, son of
Gobinda, and upon his death, the property devolved equally upon Sultan (now
deceased) and Ganpat (now deceased), each holding a 50% share. Petitioners
No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 subsequently instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction,
seeking to restrain the complainant Jagdish and his brothers (defendants
therein) from raising any illegal or forcible construction over the joint
residential property. He submits that the civil court granted an interim
injunction in favour of the petitioners, and the suit continues to remain
pending adjudication. He further submits that the civil suit was filed on
27.04.2021, whereas Complaint No. 310-PG dated 08.02.2022 and the
consequential registration of the impugned FIR dated 15.03.2022 are events
subsequent in time which clearly demonstrates that the filing of the complaint
and the registration of the FIR are motivated acts to pressurise the petitioners
and to gain leverage in the pending civil dispute.
6. The petitioner submits that even as per the complainant Jagdish's
own narration in the FIR, the land in question pertains to Manohari, daughter
of Ganpat and the complainant also acknowledges that Manohari is alive and
is the mother of two children, who would be the lawful successors entitled to
inherit her share in the property. In such circumstances, the petitioner
contends registration of the instant FIR is an abuse of process of law as it has
been registered at the behest of the complainant Jagdish, who neither
possesses any right nor holds any legally recognizable interest in the share of
Manohari. It is asserted that Jagdish's involvement is unwarranted and his
5 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -6-
attempt to initiate criminal proceedings amounts to an unwarranted
interference in matters pertaining exclusively to the rightful heirs of
Manohari.
7. The counsel for respondent No.2-complainant/Jagdish contends
that the accused persons, acting in concert and with a premeditated common
intention, orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to execute mutation No. 2222
dated 11.12.2012. He contends that the accused deliberately and falsely
projected Manohari Devi as deceased, despite being fully aware of her
continued existence, with the objective of usurping rights in the property to
which they were not legally entitled. By fabricating the death of a living co-
sharer, the accused Mehru, Jhabar, Mishrali, and Gyarsi succeeded in having
succession entries unlawfully recorded in their favour, thereby depriving the
rightful heirs of their legitimate share.
8. He further contends that accused No. 11, Mahender Singh, the
then Patwari, played a pivotal role in facilitating the alleged fraud. It is
contended that the Patwari acting in conscious dereliction of his statutory
duties knowingly endorsed and entered the impugned mutation and thereby
lent official legitimacy to the unlawful acts of the other accused. He submits
that given that Manohari Devi is alive and is the mother of two children who
would be her natural heirs, no mutation on the basis of her supposed death
could lawfully be effected. He further submits that Mishrali Devi is alleged to
have executed a Will in favour of the sons of Jhabar and Mehru,
notwithstanding the fact that they were originally entitled to only a 1/10th
share each which got later revised to 1/8th. The complainant argues through
6 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -7-
deceit and manipulation the beneficiaries have succeeded in appropriating
land far in excess of what they lawfully inherited, thereby perpetrating a fraud
upon the revenue authorities and the rightful co-sharers.
9. Counsel appearing for the state contends that during the course
of investigation, accused Mahender Singh, the then Patwari was arrested on
08.07.2022 and during his interrogation, he made a disclosure statement
admitting his role in the commission of the alleged offences. He made a
disclosure statement to the effect that on 05.12.2000, while he was posted as
Patwari of village Bayal, Mehar Singh, son of Ganpat, along with Onad Singh,
Namberdar, approached him and orally informed him that Manohari, daughter
of Ganpat, had expired and requested that the mutation of her share be
recorded accordingly. On the basis of their oral statements, Mahender Singh
recorded the statements of Mehar Singh and Onad Singh, Namberdar and
proceeded to enter mutation No. 2222 dated 05.12.2000 in the revenue record.
Counsel contends that he has admitted that he undertook no independent
enquiry or verification to ascertain the correctness of the alleged death of
Manohari Devi and that he neither received any written application nor any
death certificate and recorded the mutation solely on the basis of the oral
assertions of Mehar Singh, which were purportedly endorsed by the village
Namberdar. Learned State counsel therefore submits that the disclosure and
the material collected during investigation clearly demonstrate the illegality
committed by the accused persons.
10. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, Manohari Devi, submits
that she is the sole victim in the present matter and that the dispute has already
7 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -8-
been amicably resolved between her and the petitioners. It is argued that
although the FIR was lodged at the instance of Jagdish, son of Sultan
(respondent No. 2), he is not an aggrieved person and cannot be treated as a
victim of the alleged acts.
11. Counsel contends that once the actual victim i.e. Manohari Devi
has expressly stated that she has no grievance against the accused petitioners,
the continuation of the FIR serves no purpose and amounts to an abuse of the
process of law. It is further submitted that respondent No. 3 has executed two
affidavits dated 19.04.2023 and 15.11.2025, unequivocally declaring that she
has no grouse against the petitioners, that the mutation entries recorded in the
revenue record are correct and that she does not desire that any action be taken
against the petitioners, who are her real brothers. True translated copies of the
said affidavits have been placed on record as Annexures R-3/1 and R-3/2.
Counsel, thus submits that in light of the express stand of the true victim, the
FIR and all consequential proceedings deserve to be brought to an end.
12. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and have gone
though the judgments appended with the present petition.
13. A perusal of the pedigree table appended to the present petition
leaves no manner of doubt that the property in dispute originates from the
estate of one Sheoji, who had two sons, Ganpat and Sultan. The record
unequivocally demonstrates that all the accused persons, as well as respondent
No. 3, Manohari, are direct descendants of Ganpat, whereas the complainant
traces his lineage to Sultan. It is also an undisputed fact that Sheoji held 78
kanals and 5 marlas of land, which, upon his demise, devolved equally upon
8 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -9-
his two sons, thereby conferring 39 kanals and 2.5 marlas each upon their
respective branches. The land forming the subject matter of the present FIR
thus pertains exclusively to the share inherited by Ganpat and concerns only
the rights, entitlements, and internal arrangements of his descendants. In this
context, it becomes evident that the complainant, being a descendant of
Sultan, has no legal right, title, or locus standi to raise any grievance with
respect to the property devolving upon Ganpat and his heirs. The initiation of
criminal proceedings at his instance is therefore fundamentally misconceived
and constitutes an unwarranted intrusion into matters that lie solely within the
domain of Ganpat's legal successors. Furthermore, a civil suit pertaining to
the very same property is presently pending adjudication between the
concerned parties. In view of this, it would be neither proper nor judicious for
this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to enter
upon or express any opinion on the merits of the civil dispute, which is within
the province of the civil court seized of the matter.
14. Adverting now to the allegation that the accused persons falsely
represented Manohari to be deceased with the intent to appropriate her share
in the ancestral property, this Court finds it significant that the mutations in
question were effected as far back as the year 2000 nearly twenty-five years
prior to the initiation of the present proceedings. More importantly,
respondent No. 3, Manohari herself, the very individual whose alleged demise
constitutes the fulcrum of the present complaint, has unequivocally declared
through affidavits placed on record that she does not seek to assail the said
mutations nor does she harbour any objection to the division of the land
9 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -10-
amongst her brothers. Her categorical and voluntary statement, made without
any allegation of coercion or undue influence, makes it abundantly clear that
she does not perceive herself to be aggrieved and does not desire the
intervention of criminal law in familial matters pertaining to inheritance.
15. In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings
on the basis of an alleged grievance that the supposed victim expressly
disowns would not only serve no useful purpose but would also amount to
perpetuating litigation contrary to the wishes of the true stakeholder. The
criminal process should not be permitted to be invoked where the person
directly concerned has chosen not to contest the succession or the manner in
which the property has been apportioned.
16. The objection of respondent No.2-complainant/Jagdish, in such
circumstances would be inconsequential. The offence is more against
property and not offences against society. Once, the interested parties, who
have stake/share in the property have already settled the matter, the informant,
who is not a victim, would not claim a right to continue persecution when the
actual victim has chosen to settle the same. The objection of respondent No.2-
Jagdish thus deservers to be rejected.
17. The broad principles for exercising the powers under Section
482, Cr.P.C (now Section 528 BNSS) were summarized by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another"
(2017) 9 SCC 641'. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
"16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High
10 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -11-
Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or
to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not
confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves
powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding
on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at
between the offender and the victim is not the same as
the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While compounding an
offence, the power of the court is governed by the
provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482
is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide
ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure
the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first
information report should be quashed on the ground that
the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while
dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the
11 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -12-
High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences
involving mental depravity or offences such as murder,
rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed
though the victim or the family of the victim have settled
the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private
in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The
decision to continue with the trial in such cases is
founded on the overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or
similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may
in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties
have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and
the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause
oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the
State have implications which lie beyond the domain of
a mere dispute between private disputants. The High
Court would be justified in declining to quash where the
12 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -13-
offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or
economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of
the act complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance."
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of 'Ramgopal
And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834', that
the matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or in the matter in
which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or commission of
an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override
public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived
at amongst the parties.
19. The following relevant factors emerge from perusal of the case
as well as the subsequent developments supplementing a case for invocation
of the powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023:
i. The mutations in question were effected nearly twenty-
five years ago, substantially diminishing the relevance
and immediacy of the alleged offence.
ii. The only person who could have been treated as an
aggrieved party i.e. respondent No. 3, Manohari has
unequivocally stated that she has no objection to the
distribution of the land and does not wish to pursue any
legal remedy and has submitted her affidavit in this regard
and the same has been re-iterated by counsel.
13 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -14-
iii. The dispute pertains to intra-family succession within the
branch of Ganpat, and thus carries the character of a civil
inheritance matter rather than a criminal wrong.
iv. Petitioner No. 1 is 70 years old and petitioner No. 2 is 67
years old, indicating that the continuation of criminal
proceedings would impose undue hardship on them.
v. Petitioners Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are between 45 and 50 years
of age, petitioner No. 6 is around 80 years old, and
petitioners Nos. 7 and 8 fall within the age bracket of 40
to 45, such that prolonged criminal prosecution would
adversely affect individuals well beyond the age at which
such burdens should be imposed.
vi. Petitioners Nos. 9 and 10 are between 33 and 38 years old,
and the continuation of proceedings against the entire
family, despite the absence of any grievance from the true
stakeholder, would serve no legitimate purpose and
amount to an abuse of the process of law.
vii. The resolution of dispute amicably is the ultimate object
of law. Quashing of the proceedings would restore peace
and harmony in the family and society.
viii. The continuation of proceedings is likely to be a waste of
judicial time and not serving any larger interest of justice.
ix. A Court of law doesn't stand in the way of the ultimate
will of the effected parties, in such matters and it prefers
14 of 15
CRM-M-14873-2022 (O&M) -15-
amicable resolution over adjudication. An amicable
resolution permanently and finally settles the lis.
20. Thus, in view of the aforesaid mitigating circumstances and
bearing in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court in 'Parbatbhai
Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of
Gujarat and another" (2017) 9 SCC 641', the instant petition is allowed. FIR
No. 63 dated 15.03.2022 registered under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and
471 of IPC, 1860 at Police Station Nangal Chaudhary, District Mahendergarh
along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is hereby quashed.
21. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
18.12.2025 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
15 of 15
