IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that disputes over property rights are civil in nature, and criminal proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are not warranted when a civil remedy is available.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the judgment dated 26.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Solan (Learned Revisional Court), vide which, the order daetd 28.06.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Solan (learned Trial Court) was upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed an application/complaint before the learned Trial Court under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for directing the Station House Officer (SHO) to investigate and register an FIR against the accused. It was asserted that the accused persons are the real uncles of the complainant. The property bearing Khata No. 464/441, Khasra No. 212, and Khata No. 465/442, Khasra No. 194, situated at Mohal Lower Bazar, Solan District, Solan, was the joint ancestral property of the accused and the complainant. A partition deed was executed and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Solan, on 05.08.1955. The parties entered into an agreement on 23.09.1987, in which the accused relinquished their share in the property situated at Solan and they acquired half shares of property No. 3821, Galli No. 22, Khasra No. 2064 Block ‘K’ measuring 50 square yards at Arya Samaj Road, Ragharpura, New Delhi, and property No. 4018, Gali No. 33, Khasra No. 3100/2314, Block no. 1 measuring hundred square yards, Ragharpura Karol Bag New Delhi. This agreement was reduced to writing and was signed by all the members of the family, including the accused persons. The accused sold the property in Delhi about a decade ago and made a huge profit from it. They sold the property situated at Solan without any right, title or interest in it. They had already relinquished their shares in the property located at Solan and had acquired a share in the property located at Delhi. The sale deeds executed by the accused are not binding upon the complainant and other co-sharers. The accused have been residing in Canada for the last 40 years, and they are not permanent citizens of India. They concealed this fact from the authorities. The accused committed fraud upon all the co-owners by selling the property located at Solan. The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused. He also filed a complaint at Police Station, Solan, and before Superintendent, Police Solan; however, the police failed to take any action; hence, an application was filed before the learned Trial Court to take action against the accused as per the law.

3. The learned Trial Court held that the averments in the application disclosed a dispute of a civil nature. A copy of the Jamabandi placed on record showed that the accused and complainant were recorded as co-owners with other persons. The complainant has a remedy of filing a Civil Suit, and the criminal proceedings were not justified. Therefore, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the complainant.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial court, the complainant filed a revision, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan (learned Revisional Court). Learned Revisional Court concurred with the findings recorded by learned Trial Court that the dispute between the parties was civil and the remedy of the complainant was in filing the civil suit rather than applying under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and dismissed the revision preferred by the complainant.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgments passed by the learned Courts below, the complainant has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the dispute pending before them. The police failed to carry out a proper investigation into the matter. Learned Trial Court dismissed the complainant’s application without a