The decree for possession granted to the petitioner-Board allowed it to obtain possession of the land free from any encumbrances, overriding any subsequent sale deeds executed by the respondents. Additionally, the court clarified the limitations on challenging lower court orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Rajbir Sehrawat, J.

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of order dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional District Judge, Jhajar and order dated 02.02.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, whereby the respondents have been discharged in the criminal complaint

2. A perusal of the file shows that the petitioner-Haryana Wakf Board (hereinafter referred as, ‘Board’), claimed to be owner of khasra No.2166 Khewat No.351 situated at Bahadurgarh. The Board is further claiming that the respondents were the tenants under the Board. The Board has also filed civil suit and the same was decreed in favour of the Board. The appeal filed by the respondents was also dismissed. Whereafter, the Board has chosen not to initiate even the execution proceedings, as per the statement made by counsel for the petitioner. Subsequently, respondents are stated to have executed the sale deeds qua khara No.2214, which is situated across the road, opposite the land comprised in khasra No.2166. Upon this, Board had lodged FIR against the respondents; alleging that the sale deeds have been wrongly executed by describing therein the khasra number of land as 2214. In fact, the respondents have sold the land situated in khasra No.2166 only. Initially the respondents were summoned by the trial court. However, later on, finding no material and offence against the respondents, the trial court had discharged them. Against the discharge, the petitioner-Board preferred revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. Same was dismissed by the revisional court. Accordingly, the present petition has been preferred against the revisional order and also the original order; whereby the respondents have been discharged from the proceedings of the criminal trial.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sale deeds have been executed by the respondents, in some cases by mentioning a different khasra number then khasra No.2166; and in some other cases without even mentioning any khasra number. Hence, the respondents have sold the same very land; qua which the Board has got the decree for possession in its favour. Therefore, it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the intention to cheat the Board was very much present, when the respondents were executing the said sale deeds. Still further, it is submitted that even the revisional court has committed grave illegality in upholding the order passed by the trial court. The revisional court has wrongly held that since the demarcation was not got done by the petitioner-Board and that sale deeds have not been challenged by the Board, therefore, the complaint could not have been initiated against the respondents. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the sale deeds need not to be challenged. The property of the Board could not be alienated by the respondents; who were the tenants over the land. It is further submitted that the demarcation was not required in the case; because there is already a decree in favour of the petitioner-Board.

4. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Board and having perused the record on the file, this court does not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner Board has already got a decree for possession in its favour qua khasra No.2166. Therefore, on the basis of that decree, the Board can always get the possession; free from any encumbrances; qua the land comprised in the said khasra number. Any sale deed, executed by a party to the suit subsequent to the decree, cannot even stand in the way of the Board; in getting the possession of the land. The Board in its wisdom has not even chosen to file the execution petition for getting the possession.

5. Still further, it is not even disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner tha