The findings of civil courts are not binding in criminal proceedings, and allegations in an FIR can be substantiated by confessions and evidence presented during investigation.

JUDGMENT

Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of FIR No. 290 dated 07.11.2019 registered Section 167, 420, 468, 471 467 and 120B of IPC, 1860 at PS Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana, Punjab as well as report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 21.10.2023 submitted qua the petitioners.

2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of complaint received from respondent No.2 alleging that the area of Khasra No. 425,426,574,575 etc. in the official revenue record was declared as streets, drains and roads vide Rapat No. 996 dated 17.05.2010 under the order of District Collector Ludhiana and Patwari-Baljit Singh through subsequent report No.247 dated 26.11.2014, by using his power in an illegal manner, issued a new "fard" to the land mafia by changing records pertaining to this area under streets, drains and roads. Thereafter, without there being any other document and without informing the complainant, he immediately approved the registration of 632 square yards of land and transferred it in the name of his partner vide vasika No. 11419 dated 05.12.2014. In this way, land mafia took over the possession of vacant land of the complainant purchased in 1994 vide registered sale deeds on the basis of the wrong registry.

2.1 Brief background necessary to understand the present case is that civil suits were filed on behalf of petitioners as well as on behalf of respondent No 2 for permanent injunction which were decided by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ludhiana vide order dated 30.01.2016 which were decreed in favour of the petitioners. In appeals, learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana remanded the matter back by finding it a suit of "Hadd Shikni" and not a suit related to title. It is appropriate to note here that in this suit Patwari - Baljit Singh appeared as a witness and justified the claim of the petitioners on the basis of rapat No. 247 dated 26.11.2014.

2.2 Alleging that new report No. 247 dated 26.11.2014 was prepared by the Patwari-Baljit Singh for extraneous reasons, above-mentioned FIR was registered against him. During investigation, he made confessional statement that he registered the transfer and approved the registration of 632 square yards vide vasika No. 11419 dated 05.12.2014 on receiving Rs. 2,00,000/-, in the chargesheet, some other persons including petitioners were also arraigned as accused in this FIR. By way of present petition, prayer has been made for quashing of the FIR as well as the charge sheet.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present matter relates to civil dispute between the parties regarding possession of the disputed property which was being given criminal colour just to pressurize the petitioners to enter into a compromise. He submitted that his contention in this regard was substantiated from the fact that civil cases with respect to this property were also filed by both the parties claiming the relief of permanent injunction and the suits were eventually decreed in favour of the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.2016 by Civil Court (Jr. Division) Ludhiana. He further submitted that though vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.2019 passed by the first Appellate Court, the matter was remanded back, however, demarcation report dated 11.12.2019 was in favour of the petitioners.

3.1 Ld. Counsel submitted that from the demarcation report, claim of the petitioners was duly substantiated, on the other hand, respondent No.2/ complainant did not make any claim against the seller, who sold him the disputed land and on the principle of "buyer beware", respondent No. 2/ complainant was not entitled to make any claim against the petitioners. He also submitted that even in the chargesheet, neither there was any accusation regarding cheating on the part of the petitioners, nor was there any assertion regarding the petitioners being the beneficiaries of the act of Patwari - Baljit Singh.