Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal Senior Advocate with Vs. Pardeep Kumar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1055995
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnApr-25-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal Senior Advocate with
RespondentPardeep Kumar
Excerpt:
crl. misc. not m-45779 of 2007 (o&m) -1 - crl. misc. not m-51541 of 2007 (o&m) crl. misc. not m-13741 of 2008 (o&m) in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh.”1. crl. misc. not m-45779 of 2007 (o&m) date of decision:25. 4.2013. surjit kaur and others ........petitioners versus pardeep kumar and another ......respondents 2. crl. misc. not m-51541 of 2007 (o&m) nachhatar kaur and others ........petitioners versus pardeep kumar ......respondent 3. crl. misc. not m-13741 of 2008 (o&m) manjit singh ........petitioner versus pardeep kumar ......respondent coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.atul lakhanpal, senior advocate with mr.r.s.chahal, advocate for the petitioners.(in criminal miscellaneous not m-45779 of 2007).mr.dinesh kumar, advocate for mr.m.k.singla, advocate for the petitioners.(in criminal miscellaneous not m-51541 of 2007).mr.amandeep singh, advocate for mr.akshay bhan, advocate for the petitioner. (in criminal miscellaneous not m-13741 of 2008).mr.gaurav dhir, dag, haryana. none for respondent pardeep kumar. mr.s.n.pillani, advocate for the municipal committee....crl. misc. not m-45779 of 2007 (o&m) -2 - crl. misc. not m-51541 of 2007 (o&m) crl. misc. not m-13741 of 2008 (o&m) sabina, j. vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of criminal complaint dated 18.12.2006 titled as pardeep kumar versus smt. surjit kaur etc.under section 420, 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-b of the indian penal code ('ipc' for short) and section 3 of prevention of damage to public property act, 1934 ('act' for short) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 28.5.2007. learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint in question was liable to be quashed as no criminal offence could be said to have been committed by the petitioners.manjit singh had filed a civil suit against the municipal committee for permanent injunction. the municipal committee had failed to establish that the property in question belonged to the committee. manjit singh had already raised construction over the land in dispute. the plans in question were got sanctioned by manjit singh for renovation of his house. the house in question was already being assessed to house tax. further, the resolution of the municipal committee, sanctioning the site plan for renovation, had already been set aside by the deputy commissioner vide order dated 18.8.2006. learned counsel for the municipal committee, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. in the present case, complainant-respondent pardeep kumar has filed the complaint in question against the officials of the municipal committee as well as private respondents with crl. misc. not m-45779 of 2007 (o&m) -3 - crl. misc. not m-51541 of 2007 (o&m) crl. misc. not m-13741 of 2008 (o&m) regard to sanction of site plan in favour of manjit singh, nachattar kaur, charanjit kaur and beeb kaur. the case of the complainant was that after the approval of the site plans, the said persons had raised illegal construction over the disputed property. there was civil litigation between municipal committee and private persons with regard to land in question upto the apex court. the apex court vide order dated 30.10.1995 has held as under:- “it is a case of sorry state of affairs both by the municipal committee, ratia in the district of hissar as well as the petitioner. it is claimed that an extent of 1 acre of land was obtained by a factitious sale deed by respondent no.1 from rattan singh though the land belongs to the municipal committee. when we repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the material on the basis of which the land could be shown to belongs to the municipal committee, the counsel cannot reply except saying that he made the application for being impleaded and was dismissed. nothing is shown before us that the land belongs to the municipal committee. under these circumstances, we are constraint not to go into the controversy. the s.l.p.is dismissed on this ground alone. this order of dismissal does not stand in the way of the municipal committee to assets its right of title to the property and should take appropriate crl. misc. not m-45779 of 2007 (o&m) -4 - crl. misc. not m-51541 of 2007 (o&m) crl. misc. not m-13741 of 2008 (o&m) steps if the land really does belong to the municipal committee in appropriate forum for its recovery.” thus, upto the apex court, the municipal committee had failed to establish that the land belongs to it. further, a perusal of the complaint itself reveals that the site plans which were sanctioned by the officials of the municipal committee in favour of the private persons were set aside by the deputy commissioner, fatehabad vide order dated 18.8.2006. the said order was challenged by manjit singh and others by filing civil writ petition no.18596 of 2007. the said petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous by this court vide order dated 16.5.2012 as proceedings before the civil court were pending. the dispute between the parties could be said to be purely civil in nature. the matter was also investigated by the police under section 202 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 and it was found vide report dated 20.3.2007 that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature. in the present case it is evident that the order passed by the officials of the committee, sanctioning the plans in favour of the private persons, was set aside by the deputy commissioner. thus, the civil remedy had already been availed by the committee in the present case. moreover, municipal committee had failed to establish that the land belongs to it upto the apex court in civil litigation. in these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose. accordingly, these petitions are allowed. criminal complaint dated 18.12.2006 titled as pardeep kumar versus crl. misc. not m-45779 of 2007 (o&m) -5 - crl. misc. not m-51541 of 2007 (o&m) crl. misc. not m-13741 of 2008 (o&m) smt. surjit kaur etc.under section 420, 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-b ipc and section 3 of the act including the summoning order dated 28.5.2007 and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. (sabina) judge april 25, 2013 gurpreet
Judgment:

Crl.

Misc.

not M-45779 of 2007 (O&M) -1 - Crl.

Misc.

not M-51541 of 2007 (O&M) Crl.

Misc.

not M-13741 of 2008 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.”

1. Crl.

Misc.

not M-45779 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:

25. 4.2013.

Surjit Kaur and others ........Petitioners versus Pardeep Kumar and another ......Respondents 2.

Crl.

Misc.

not M-51541 of 2007 (O&M) Nachhatar Kaur and others ........Petitioners versus Pardeep Kumar ......Respondent 3.

Crl.

Misc.

not M-13741 of 2008 (O&M) Manjit Singh ........Petitioner versus Pardeep Kumar ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioneRs.(In Criminal Miscellaneous not M-45779 of 2007).Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioneRs.(In Criminal Miscellaneous not M-51541 of 2007).Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

(In Criminal Miscellaneous not M-13741 of 2008).Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana.

None for respondent Pardeep Kumar.

Mr.S.N.Pillani, Advocate for the Municipal Committee....Crl.

Misc.

not M-45779 of 2007 (O&M) -2 - Crl.

Misc.

not M-51541 of 2007 (O&M) Crl.

Misc.

not M-13741 of 2008 (O&M) SABINA, J.

Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of criminal complaint dated 18.12.2006 titled as Pardeep Kumar versus Smt.

Surjit Kaur etc.under Section 420, 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1934 ('Act' for short) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 28.5.2007.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint in question was liable to be quashed as no criminal offence could be said to have been committed by the petitioneRs.Manjit Singh had filed a civil suit against the Municipal Committee for permanent injunction.

The Municipal Committee had failed to establish that the property in question belonged to the Committee.

Manjit Singh had already raised construction over the land in dispute.

The plans in question were got sanctioned by Manjit Singh for renovation of his house.

The house in question was already being assessed to house tax.

Further, the resolution of the Municipal Committee, sanctioning the site plan for renovation, had already been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 18.8.2006.

Learned counsel for the Municipal Committee, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

In the present case, complainant-respondent Pardeep Kumar has filed the complaint in question against the officials of the Municipal Committee as well as private respondents with Crl.

Misc.

not M-45779 of 2007 (O&M) -3 - Crl.

Misc.

not M-51541 of 2007 (O&M) Crl.

Misc.

not M-13741 of 2008 (O&M) regard to sanction of site plan in favour of Manjit Singh, Nachattar Kaur, Charanjit Kaur and Beeb Kaur.

The case of the complainant was that after the approval of the site plans, the said persons had raised illegal construction over the disputed property.

There was civil litigation between Municipal Committee and private persons with regard to land in question upto the Apex Court.

The Apex Court vide order dated 30.10.1995 has held as under:- “It is a case of sorry state of affairs both by the Municipal Committee, Ratia in the District of Hissar as well as the petitioner.

It is claimed that an extent of 1 acre of land was obtained by a factitious sale deed by respondent No.1 from Rattan Singh though the land belongs to the Municipal Committee.

When we repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the material on the basis of which the land could be shown to belongs to the Municipal Committee, the counsel cannot reply except saying that he made the application for being impleaded and was dismissed.

Nothing is shown before us that the land belongs to the Municipal Committee.

Under these circumstances, we are constraint not to go into the controversy.

The S.L.P.Is dismissed on this ground alone.

This order of dismissal does not stand in the way of the Municipal Committee to assets its right of title to the property and should take appropriate Crl.

Misc.

not M-45779 of 2007 (O&M) -4 - Crl.

Misc.

not M-51541 of 2007 (O&M) Crl.

Misc.

not M-13741 of 2008 (O&M) steps if the land really does belong to the Municipal Committee in appropriate forum for its recovery.”

Thus, upto the Apex Court, the Municipal Committee had failed to establish that the land belongs to it.

Further, a perusal of the complaint itself reveals that the site plans which were sanctioned by the officials of the Municipal Committee in favour of the private persons were set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehabad vide order dated 18.8.2006.

The said order was challenged by Manjit Singh and others by filing Civil Writ Petition No.18596 of 2007.

The said petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous by this Court vide order dated 16.5.2012 as proceedings before the Civil Court were pending.

The dispute between the parties could be said to be purely civil in nature.

The matter was also investigated by the police under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and it was found vide report dated 20.3.2007 that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature.

In the present case it is evident that the order passed by the officials of the Committee, sanctioning the plans in favour of the private persons, was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner.

Thus, the civil remedy had already been availed by the Committee in the present case.

Moreover, Municipal Committee had failed to establish that the land belongs to it upto the Apex Court in civil litigation.

In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose.

Accordingly, these petitions are allowed.

Criminal complaint dated 18.12.2006 titled as Pardeep Kumar versus Crl.

Misc.

not M-45779 of 2007 (O&M) -5 - Crl.

Misc.

not M-51541 of 2007 (O&M) Crl.

Misc.

not M-13741 of 2008 (O&M) Smt.

Surjit Kaur etc.under Section 420, 409, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 3 of the Act including the summoning order dated 28.5.2007 and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

(SABINA) JUDGE April 25, 2013 Gurpreet