The court quashed the complaint and summoning order, ruling that the proceedings were an abuse of process, as established civil court findings negated the allegations made in the criminal complaint.

Judgment

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the Complaint No.RT-18/09.05.2016 dated 19.08.2015 filed by respondent No.1 under Sections 452/ 379/ 295/ 435/ 506/ 148/149/120-B IPC (Annexure P-5), the Summoning order under Sections 148, 295 read with Section 149 IPC passed by the JMIC, Moga dated 23.05.2018 (Annexure P-6) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the pleadings are that petitioner No.1 is the real sister of respondent No.2. Their father late Munish Ram vide Transfer Deed dated 23.05.2005 transferred his land measuring 40 kanals 8 marlas in favour of the petitioner No.1. The said transfer deed was challenged by the respondent No.2 by way of filing of a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.57 of 2006 for declaration to the effect that the suit property was ancestral/coparcenary and respondent No.2/complainant was in possession thereof.

3. The said Civil Suit bearing CS No.57 of 2006 filed by respondent No.2 was dismissed on 17.09.2013 (Annexure P-1) wherein a finding was given to the effect that the Transfer Deed dated 23.05.2005 was just and proper. It was also held that Mutation No.940 had been sanctioned in favour of petitioner No.1-Krishna Devi and that order had been upheld in the Court of A.C. 2nd Grade, Commissioner, Ferozepur Division and FCR, Punjab and therefore respondent No.2/complainant had not been able to prove his possession.

4. The respondent No.2 had filed another Civil Suit bearing C.S. No.41 dated 03.03.2014 in which he claimed that the land measuring 06 kanals, 18 marlas was in his possession and petitioner No.1-Krishna Devi should not interfere in the said possession and that she had nothing to do with motor connection bearing No.R3-32 of 10 BHP involved in the said land. On 03.03.2014 the Trial Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the said land.

5. Thereafter, the instant complaint came to be filed by respondent No.1 on 19.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) with multiple allegations. The averments/allegations in the said complaint were similar to the pleadings in the aforementioned two civil suits. In the criminal complaint, the petitioners came to be summoned under Sections 148, 295 read with Section 149 IPC vide order dated 23.05.2018 (Annexure P-6).

6. In Civil Suit bearing No.57, the appeal which had been instituted bearing Civil Appeal No.12 of 2013 came to be dismissed on 09.03.2017 (Annexure P-7) which finding was further confirmed on 01.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) by this Court in RSA No. 4911 of 2017 titled as Lal Chand & others Versus Munshi Ram & another, decided on 01.06.2018.

7. Meanwhile, in C.S. No.41 of 2014, the Trial Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the said land vide order dated 03.03.2014. The said interim order was valid upto 12.03.2014 after which it was never extended. On 11.09.2014 respondent No.2 invoked the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A read with Section 151 CPC in CM No.28 of 2015 for violation of the order dated 03.03.2014 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Moga. The allegations in the said application were that on 03.05.2014, Krishna Devi and her daughter i.e. petitioner No.2 along with 14/15 musclemen armed with arms and ammunitions and deadly weapons entered into the land of the complainant, harvested the standing crop and threatened to kill the plaintiff and therefore, the status quo order was violated. It was held by the Civil Judge, vide its order dated 04.09.2017 (Annexure P-4) that except for the self-serving statement of respondent No.2 there was no other positive evidence to prove that the respondents had committed any breach of any order. It was further held that there had been long drawn litigation both civil and criminal between respondent No.2-Lal Chand and petitioner No.1-Krishna Devi with regard to the property left behind by their predecessor-in-interest Munshi Ram.

8. The