Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1058 (PNJ)

Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-08-14

Inderjit Singh

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - Petitioners Santokh Singh, Chamkaur Singh, Malkit Singh, Harpal Singh and Balwinder Kaur have preferred the instant petition for quashing of case FIR No.582 dated 12.08.2009, registered at Police Station, Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda under Sections 448, 379, 148 and 149 IPC and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The brief facts of the present petition are that the FIR in the present case has been registered at the instance of Harpreet Singh, who is a police officer in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda. As per the facts, Gurdev Singh and Tejinderjit Kaur, who are uncle and aunt of petitioner No.1 Santokh Singh, are residing at Virginia in USA for the last many years. They have one house constructed on plot measuring 250 square yards at Nachhatar Nagar, Gali No.2, which is opposite to the house of ASI Harpreet Singh, complainant. Petitioner No.1 has stated in the petition that he is the care taker of the aforesaid property. In the month of December, 2008, he visited the said property and found that complainant Harpreet Singh had already demolished the said house and filled up the foundations on the said plot. When petitioner No.1 talked to complainant and told him that the said property belongs to his uncle and aunt then the complainant told petitioner No.1 that the said property belongs to him as he has purchased the same and threatened petitioner No.1 that if he further argued then he (complainant) will get him behind the bars. Petitioner No.1 made a written complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police on 18.12.2008. On the said complaint, Superintendent of Police (D) got recorded the statements of petitioners as well as of complainant ASI Harpreet Singh and prepared the report in which it has been specifically mentioned that Harpreet Singh has taken the said house for tethering the animals from its owner Gurdev Singh by talking on telephone. It is further stated in the petition that the owners of the property are living abroad. One Balwant Singh Dhillon, Advocate, allegedly entered into an agreement with complainant Harpreet Singh for the sale of said house for an amount of Rs.9,10,000/-. It is stated that Balwant Singh Dhillon purchased the said plot from Professor Karam Singh vide agreement to sell dated 26.08.1988 and this fact was never brought to the notice of Superintendent of Police (D), Bathinda. It is stated that Balwant Singh Dhillon purchased the said plot from Professor Karam Singh vide agreement to sell dated 26.08.1988 and this fact was never brought to the notice of Superintendent of Police (D), Bathinda. ASI Harpeet Singh in a revengeful attitude lodged the complaint by misusing the powers, to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda against the petitioners as well as against Balwant Singh Dhillon, Advocate and an FIR has been registered on the basis of alleged inquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police (H) which is totally against the facts and law. It is also stated in the petition that during inquiry, it has come on record that Balwant Singh Dhillon had purchased the said property from one Professor Karam Singh on the basis of agreement to sell whereas no agreement to sell or sale deed has been placed on record. In the FIR, the complainant stated as under:- “That on 30.07.2008 I purchased one house measuring 250 square yards of Khasra No.3667/2 in which two rooms, boundary wall and one iron gate was fixed from advocate Balwant Singh Dhillon vide agreement for consideration of Rs.9,10,000/-. This agreement was written by Balwant Singh Dhillon and he has written that he is owner in possession of this house. The possession of this house was given by Advocate Balwant Singh Dhillon on 30.07.2008 while writing agreement to sell. That after about 3 months when I started the work on this purchased house then there came Santokh Singh son of Baldev Singh resident of Village Poohli, Malkit Singh resident of Village Poohli, Chamkaur Singh and some of their companions and said that this house is in the name of Tejinderjit Kaur wife of Gurdev Singh resident of Village Poohli and now she is residing in America. After this, these persons removed the electricity meter of Balwant Singh Dhillon from my purchased house and hid it and got installed a new meter in their name. That till now I had been trying to solve this matter in a Panchayati way after the talks between the two parties but of no avail. After this, these persons removed the electricity meter of Balwant Singh Dhillon from my purchased house and hid it and got installed a new meter in their name. That till now I had been trying to solve this matter in a Panchayati way after the talks between the two parties but of no avail. Baldev Singh Dhillon, Advocate, has sold for Rs.9,10,000/- a house of Tejinderjit Kaur wife of Gurdev Singh after claiming that it was of his ownership in possession and has cheated me whereas the relatives of Tejinderjit Kaur have stolen the old meter from the house of my possession and has taken possession of the same. Legal action may be taken against all these persons.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents filed replies and contested the petition. 4. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per FIR itself, the property is belonging to Tejinderjit Kaur and Gurdev Singh, aunt and uncle of petitioner No.1. There is no sale deed or any agreement to sell executed by them in favour of Professor Karam Singh or Balwant Singh Dhillon or the present complainant. There is no sale deed in favour of Karam Singh or Balwant Singh Dhillon executed by the real owners. There is also no general power of attorney in favour of these persons. Therefore, the ownership and possession remained with the original owners. As such, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no offence under Section 448 IPC is made out in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the electric meter in the said house, though, stated during the inquiry to be in the name of Nirbhai Singh but it will be treated as of owners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that only owner can lodge the report regarding theft and not the present complainant who is not the owner of the property. As the complainant is neither the owner of the property nor of the electric meter, so he cannot lodge the FIR regarding theft of electric meter. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that petitioner No.1, being nephew of the original owners, is care taker of the property, therefore, offence under Section 448 IPC is not made out. As the complainant is neither the owner of the property nor of the electric meter, so he cannot lodge the FIR regarding theft of electric meter. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that petitioner No.1, being nephew of the original owners, is care taker of the property, therefore, offence under Section 448 IPC is not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that otherwise, the complainant has no right in the property nor he was in possession, so no offence is made out. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the complainant-respondent No.2 is in possession of the property on the basis of agreement to sell executed by one Balwant Singh Dhillon for an amount of Rs.9,10,000/- and the petitioners while entering into the property and by removing the electric meter have committed the offence. Learned State counsel also contested the petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and with their assistance, I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully. 7. From the record, I find that firstly, it is in the FIR itself that the property belongs to Tejinderjit Kaur, wife of Gurdev Singh. The allegations are levelled even against Balwant Singh Dhillon, Advocate, that he sold the property for Rs.9,10,000/- and cheated the complainant by saying that it is in his ownership. During inquiry, investigation and even in this petition, no document has been placed on record to show that the original owners have ever gave any power of attorney or executed any agreement to sell or sale deed in favour of Professor Karam Singh or Balwant Singh Dhillon, Advocate or respondent No.2-complainant ASI Harpreet Singh. The only agreement executed by Balwant Singh Dhillon, Advocate, in favour of complainant without any ownership right or any right in the property will not transfer any ownership right to the complainant. Similarly, there is no agreement to sell or any sale deed in favour of Balwant Singh Dhillon, Advocate. The property, as per FIR, is of Tejinderjit Kaur and Balwant Singh Dhillon, Advocate executed the agreement to sell the property in favour of Harpreet Singh by stating himself as owner in possession and cheated him. Similarly, there is no agreement to sell or any sale deed in favour of Balwant Singh Dhillon, Advocate. The property, as per FIR, is of Tejinderjit Kaur and Balwant Singh Dhillon, Advocate executed the agreement to sell the property in favour of Harpreet Singh by stating himself as owner in possession and cheated him. Therefore, in view of this situation, ASI Harpreet Singh cannot be held as owner in possession of the said property on the basis of agreement to sell executed by Balwant Singh Dhillon. The complainant is also cannot be held as owner of the electric meter which he states that it has been removed by the petitioners. Therefore, from the perusal of the FIR itself, it is clear that no offence is made out against the petitioners. Balwant Singh Dhillon, Advocate, is not the petitioner in the present case against whom the complainant is levelling allegation of cheating. There is also a general allegation regarding removing of electric meter by the petitioners. Neither any time, date or month has been mentioned nor there is anything to show that in whose presence the petitioners removed the electric meter. Further learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice that an application was given for taking action against ASI Harpreet Singh on 21.12.2008 and also on 17.04.2009 etc. and this FIR has been registered to put pressure upon the petitioners. 8. Therefore, from the record, I find that from the complaint filed by ASI Harpreet Singh, no offence is made out. This complaint is abuse of the process of the Court and law. 9. Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.582 dated 12.08.2009, registered at Police Station, Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda under Sections 448, 379, 148 and 149 IPC and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. --------0.B.S.0------------