Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1865 (PNJ)

Gurmeet Kaur v. State of Haryana

2009-10-29

L.N.MITTAL

body2009
JUDGMENT L. N. Mittal, J.:-Gurmeet Kaur, her sister Ravinder Kaur and their mother Dalbir Kaur have filed the instant petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 26 dated 22.2.2006, under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Brara, District Ambala, (Annexure P/1). 2. According to the prosecution version, Dilbagh Singh who is father of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner no. 3 entered into agreement to sell dated 5.5.2005, Annexure P/2 regarding 60 bighas of land in favour of complainant-respondent no. 2 Balbir Singh. However, Dilbagh Singh transferred the said land in favour of his sons by way of award dated 10.8.2005, Annexure P/4 passed by Samjhauta Sadan/Permanent Lok Adalat, Ambala on the basis of consent of Dilbagh Singh. A house which is not part of the agreement to sell was transferred in favour of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 herein. No property has been transferred in favour of petitioner no. 1. The grievance of the complainant is that Dilbagh Singh in collusion with his three sons (non-petitioners) and the petitioners transferred the land in favour of his sons so as to deprive the complainant of purchasing the land pursuant to agreement to sell. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. As noticed hereinabove, the agreement between Dilbagh Singh and complainant was regarding sale of land only and no part of the said land has been transferred in favour of the petitioners. Perusal of Lok Adalat award Annexure P/4 also reveals that a house which is not part of agreement to sell was transferred in favour of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and no property whatsoever was transferred in favour of petitioner no. 1. It, thus, becomes manifest that no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners even if all the allegations of the complainant are taken at their face value. Concern of the complainant is with the land which is part of the agreement to sell. The petitioners have nothing to do with the said land nor any part thereof has been transferred in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the court because they cannot be said to have committed any offence whatsoever. 5. The petitioners have nothing to do with the said land nor any part thereof has been transferred in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the court because they cannot be said to have committed any offence whatsoever. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that petitioners are party to award Annexure P/4 whereby land which is subject matter of the agreement to sell Annexure P/2 was transferred in favour of sons of Dilbagh Singh. Further merely on this basis, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence because by the said award, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were declared to be owners of the house which is not subject matter of the agreement to sell and petitioner no. 1 got no property. If petitioner nos. 2 and 3 got their rights in the house adjudicated upon in the Lok Adalat, they cannot be said to have committed any offence when the said house is not subject matter of the agreement to sell and the complainant has nothing to do whatsoever with the said house. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and FIR No. 26 dated 22.2.2006, under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Brara, District Ambala, (Annexure P/1), is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners only. ----------