The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner to entertain revision petitions in partition proceedings is limited, and interim orders in collateral proceedings cannot nullify completed offenses.

JUDGMENT :

RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.

1. This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No.173 dated 01.08.2018 registered under Sections 447, 511, 506, 427, 34 IPC at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The FIR in the case came into being on the statement of Barinder Singh. It would be apposite to have reference to the FIR which is reproduced below:-

"Copy of application No.1641/5D/Police Station Sohana Dated 31.07.2018. To P.S. Sohana SAS Nagar SUB: Complaint against Manpreet Singh S/o Balwant Singh R/o #2304, Sector 17, Mohali, Mobile No.98557-78692 Sir, it is submitted that Smt. Satpal Kaur W/o Late Sh. Sunder Singh and Sh. Jagdish Singh S/o Late Sh. Sunder Singh are owner in possession of about 16 acres of agriculture land. The above owner had filed proceedings for partition and separate possession out of the joint land; before Tehsildar Mohali. The Tehsildar-cum- Assistant Collector, vide order dt. 06/06/2018 passed partition order. On 30.07.2018 Kanoongo and Halka Patwari gave physical possession of the property to the aforesaid owner and affixed pillars on the partitioned land and thus the possession was handed over to the aforesaid owners. The abovesaid owners were put into specific physical possession in the presence of 2 lamberdars and other person who were earlier joint owners. However, today, on 31/07/2018, Sh. Mohinder and our 2 other persons were present on the land, the possession of which was handed over to the above mentioned owners on 30/07/2018 by the kanoongo and patwari. Today at about 4 PM, Manpreet Singh came at the spot with 4-5 unidentified persons, some armed with daangs and some were armed with Kahis. Immediately on coming at the spot Manpreet Singh started abusing Mohinder and other persons who were present at the spot; and also gave beating to Mohinder while forcefully restraining Mohinder at the spot. They also threatened Mohinder to kill; if any further pillars were fixed on the spot. Manpreet and others also forcibly removed and damaged the pillalrs which were installed over the property abutting the Landran-Chunniu road. While going he threatened Mohinder of dire consequences and also said that he will not allow the owners to remain in possession of the said land; which has been handed over to them on 30/07/2018 by the Kanoongo and Halka Patwari. Mohinder immediately called me over the phone and narrated the above said incident which I have mentioned in this application. Legal Action be taken and adequate security be provided; so that no harm is caused to me or to the property."

3. At the time of motion hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that admittedly, the petitioners were co-sharers in the land which was alleged to have been trespassed. It was also submitted that since the complainant side had obtained ex-parte order in partition proceedings, therefore, the Sanad Takseem and warrants of possession prepared/issued by the Assistant Collector were stayed by the Financial Commissioner. It was also pleaded that the complainant side was never put into exclusive possession of the land in question. In view of these submissions, the further proceedings before the trial Court were ordered to be stayed till the next date of hearing.

4. However, thereafter, the complainant filed a detailed reply; along with application for vacation of stay. In this reply, it was refuted that the order or proceedings of partition were ex-parte. It was also pleaded and submitted that the petitioners had misled the Court in that regard. In fact, the petitioners were very much party to the proceedings and the warrants of possession issued by the statutory authority had already been duly executed. Even the jamabandi had been prepared, incorporating the entries arising from partition proceedings therein. Hence, the final record of rights already stood prepared. Therefore, there is no question of there being an admitted position that the parties were co-