Teja Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Another

Teja Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Mar 05, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1131549

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1131549
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Mar 05, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Teja Singh and Another

Respondent

State of Punjab and Another

Excerpt

.....counsel for the state and further submitted that the submissions raised by kapoor prashant 2014.03.06 17:04 i attest to the accuracy of this order crm-m-17643-2010 (o&m) 3 the learned counsel for the petitioners are based on disputed questions of facts, which are to be decided by the learned court below. he further contended that the complainant-respondent no.2 had purchased the land in dispute and was in possession of the same at the time of occurrence. he further submitted that just to dispossess respondent no.2 from the disputed land, the petitioners along with their co-accused tresspassed his property and caused mischief by destroying wheat crop. he further contends that while leaving the place of occurrence, the petitioners and their co-accused extended the threat to them, therefore, mischiefs of the offences punishable under sections 427 and 447 etc. of the indian penal code are clearly made out.5. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.6. it is settled proposition that disputed questions of facts cannot be decided in a petition under section 482, cr.p.c. the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that they were in possession of the land in dispute has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. from the perusal of the fir, it is clearly made out that the petitioners and their co-accused visited the place of kapoor prashant 2014.03.06 17:04 i attest to the accuracy of this order crm-m-17643-2010 (o&m) 4 occurrence, caused damage to the wheat crop sown by the complainant-respondent no.2 and extended threats to him. at that time the petitioners and their co-accused were carrying fire- arms.7. in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for by this court while exercising jurisdiction under section 482, cr.p.c.8. dismissed. (naresh kumar sanghi) march 5, 2014 judge pkapoor.....

Full Judgment

CRM-M-17643-2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17643-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 5, 2014 Teja Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

1. Present petition has been filed by Teja Singh and Harbans Singh for quashing of FIR No.137, dated 27.11.2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 427, 447 and 506 read with Section 149, IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Sarhali, District Tarn Taran.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute, therefore, there was no question on the part of the petitioners and their co-accused to go to the said land and commit the offences. He further contends that the learned Civil Court has already decided the said issue in Kapoor Prashant 2014.03.06 17:04 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-17643-2010 (O&M) 2 favour of the petitioners and that decision has attained finality. He further contends that the Sub Divisional Magistrate visited the spot and found the petitioners in possession of the land in dispute.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Prem Singh of Police Station, Sarhali, District Tarn Taran, submits that the matter was thoroughly investigated and it was found that the petitioners did commit the offences for which they have been booked and after investigation the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) has already been submitted before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate and from the perusal of the report under Section 173, Cr.P.c., and the documents enclosed therewith, prima facie, it is established that the petitioners did commit the offences. He has read out the FIR (Annexure P-1) wherein there are specific allegations with regard to commission of the offences by the petitioners. He further contends that at the behest of the petitioners, an inquiry was conducted by the Senior Police Officer and the findings have come against them.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2, Gurbaj Singh, has also toed the lines of the learned counsel for the State and further submitted that the submissions raised by Kapoor Prashant 2014.03.06 17:04 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-17643-2010 (O&M) 3 the learned counsel for the petitioners are based on disputed questions of facts, which are to be decided by the learned Court below. He further contended that the complainant-respondent No.2 had purchased the land in dispute and was in possession of the same at the time of occurrence. He further submitted that just to dispossess respondent No.2 from the disputed land, the petitioners along with their co-accused tresspassed his property and caused mischief by destroying wheat crop. He further contends that while leaving the place of occurrence, the petitioners and their co-accused extended the threat to them, therefore, mischiefs of the offences punishable under Sections 427 and 447 etc. of the Indian Penal Code are clearly made out.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

6. It is settled proposition that disputed questions of facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that they were in possession of the land in dispute has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. From the perusal of the FIR, it is clearly made out that the petitioners and their co-accused visited the place of Kapoor Prashant 2014.03.06 17:04 I attest to the accuracy of this order CRM-M-17643-2010 (O&M) 4 occurrence, caused damage to the wheat crop sown by the complainant-respondent No.2 and extended threats to him. At that time the petitioners and their co-accused were carrying fire- arms.

7. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

8. Dismissed. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) March 5, 2014 JUDGE Pkapoor Kapoor Prashant 2014.03.06 17:04 I attest to the accuracy of this order

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Teja Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Another Same Subject Land Acquisition