Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Virender Singh, J.
Chaman Singh & Others - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Another - Respondent
Cr. MMO No. 98 of 2023
Decided On : 01-12-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.18 R.4, O.39 R.2(a)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.201, S.34, S.427, S.447, S.504, S.506
Headnote
(B) Inherent powers - Scope - High Court to scrutinize if civil transaction given criminal texture - No mini-trial but documents show no offence made out - Mechanical orders by trial court not sustainable.
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings from complaint under Section 156(3) alleging offences post demarcation and sale deed of land. Respondent claimed possession per unrecorded family agreement, damage to water installation. Police cancellation report confirmed petitioners' ownership. Trial court summoned accused despite. Ongoing civil suit for declaration and counter FIR against complainant.
Findings of Court:
Proceedings initiated against two cancellation reports quashed; trial court order dated 25.11.2022 set aside as no cognizable offence disclosed.
Issues: Whether criminal proceedings sustainable amid civil land dispute with revenue records favoring petitioners, unacted family agreement, police finding no case; trial court's cognizance justified.
Ratio Decidendi: High Court quashes where civil dispute over land given criminal cloak, ingredients absent, civil remedies pursued; prevents abuse, secures justice per Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra and Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy.
Result: Petition allowed.
For the Petitioners:Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naresh Kaul and Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. H.S. Rawat, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. Varun Chandel, Addl. AGs with Ms. Ranjna Patial and Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy.AGs, Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks quashing of criminal proceedings (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. partition proceedings limited to agricultural land (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. demarcation and sale deed of khasra 513 executed (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. initial police inquiry found no offense (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. 156(3) complaint filed suppressing material facts (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. civil suit and fir against complainant for trespass (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. magistrate orders cognizance despite cancellation report (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. complainant alleges conspiracy and damage to property (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 9. civil dispute lacks criminal offense ingredients (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 10. quash proceedings cloaking civil disputes criminally (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 11. proceedings quashed; no criminal case made out (Para 57 , 58 , 59) |
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, Judge
Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), for quashing the proceedings in case No. “UTR-CR/7021/2018”, titled as, 2025:HHC:41446 ‘ Smt. Bimla versus State of H.P. ’, initiated, at the instance of respondent No. 2, who has filed application, under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C.
2. By way of present petition, following substantive reliefs, have been sought:
i) The present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the constitution of India may kindly be allowed and the proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 2 against the two cancellation reports i.e. against the "UTR-CR/7021/2018 titled as Bimla Kaul Vs. State of H.P.", by way of proceedings under Section 156(3) and order dated 25.11.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of law and justice.
ii) That the respondent no. 2 may be held guilty for filing false affidavit and for suppression the material facts about filing of the Civil Suit no. 238/2014 titled as Narinder Kumar Vs Ved Prakash and others with the same set of facts, whereby declaration has been against the sale deed dated 20.09.2014(Annexure P-7) and also for possession Khasra No. 513 (Annexure P-6), now owned and possessed by the petitioner no. 1.
iii) That the Ld. Trial Court may be restrained to continue with the proceedings in UTR CR/7021/2018 titled as Bimla Kaul Vs. State of H.P. till the decision of civil suit no. 238/2014 titled as Narinder Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash and others, which is fixed for defendants evidence on 18.02.2023, in the interest of justice.
iv) That the Ld. Trial Court may be restrained to continue with the proceedings in UTR-CR/7021/2018 titled as "Bimla Kaul Vs. State of H.P." till the conclusion of trial going on before Ld. Judicial Magistrate First class Nurpur in FIR 166/2015 registered under Sections 447, 427, 504, 506, 188, 34 IPC against the respondent No. 2, Sh. Narinder Kumar (husband) and Sh. Navdeep Kaul(Son) who are witnesses in complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., (who have neither been got examined by complainant / respondent No.2 nor called by the court), till the pendency of this petition.
v) That the complete record of the case No. UTR CR/7021/2018 titled as "Bimla Kaul Vs State of H.P. may called for kind perusal in view of the contents as explained in separate application filed with this petition.”
3. The aforesaid relief has been sought on the ground that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are residents of same village and neighbors to each other. The husband of respondent No.2, alongwith one another co- sharer, filed an application on 28.7.2003, for partition of land, bearing khata No. 6, khatauni No. 9, Khasra Nos. 518, 519, 521, 522, 524, 525, 529, 532 and 1142, situated at village Gayora, Mauza Chhatroli, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. In the application, it has been mentioned that Abadi area be allotted according to share, because value of abadi area is more valuable. The said ap
