The court ruled that disputed questions of fact regarding ownership and fraud must be resolved in trial court, not through a quashing petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J. (Oral)

The instant petition, as cast under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., proffers the hereinafter extracted relief, as craved by the petitioner, inasmuch as, quashing of the FIR No.116, dated 15.06.2021, under Sections 417, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC, registered at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the ground that FIR (supra) is a glaring instance of abuse of process of law, as in the instant FIR, a civil dispute has been given the colour of criminal offence.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents which are per se admissible and attached with the instant petition, clearly depicts that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the land in question, therefore, putting them to face trial in pursuance of the impugned FIR, would be the travesty of the justice. Therefore, by referring to the law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case, titled as "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1993 SC 1348, the prayer has been made for quashing of the instant FIR.

3. Per contra, the asked for relief has been opposed by the learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant, on the ground that, the dispute involved in the instant petition, relates to transfer of a big chunk of land, which admittedly is in the ownership of the Provincial Government, and, he further submits that the issue which has been raised by the petitioners in the instant petition, is purely a disputed question of fact, which cannot be appreciated merely by exchange of affidavits, specifically, when the documents which are attached with the present petition, are required to be proved by way of leading evidence as per the requirement of the Indian Evidence Act, 1974.

4. Before embarking upon the process of evaluating the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the contesting litigants, and thereupon, penning down any opinion regarding validity of the impugned FIR, let us dive through the facts of the instant petition in detail.

5. The instant FIR, has been registered on the complaint made by Surinder Kaur-respondent no.2, wherein, she alleged that the petitioners have illegally cut down 30 years old trees {of mangoes, Eucalyptus and Genus Populus (Poplar)} grown on the said land, and belonged to the complainant, and further the accused sold these trees. Petitioner no.2 in order to cheat, fraudulently got signatures of complainant/respondent no.2, on some blank papers, who, claims herself to be an illiterate lady, to create a document of transfer of the land in question in his favour. The relevant extract of the FIR reads as under:-

"Complaint No. 1994-PD dated 06.05.2021. To Worthy SSP Hoshiarpur. Sub: Complaint against Sh. Neeraj Puri s/o Yog Raj Puri r/o 437/438, Kalia Colony regarding illegal cutting of trees (Mango, Eucalyptus, Popular), Mobile No. 83609-65591. Sir, it is humbly submitted that I Surinder Kaur d/o Late Sh. Milkha Singh wife of Sh. Mangal Singh am resident of Mander, PO Adda Kathar, District Jalandhar and submit as follows: (1) That I am the only daughter of my father Milkha Singh and I am sold legal heir of his property situated in Village Khakhli, P.S. Bagpur Sataur, District Hoshiarpur. Apart from me, there is no other legal heir. (2) That my father Milkha Singh had expired on 04.02.1995 in Village Mander. My mother Smt. Kartariji had predeceased him. (3) That the provincial government had allotted land to my father measuring 14 acres 2 kanals 8 marlas. The fard bandi and khasra girdawari of this land is in the name of Milkha Singh (by way of proof, copies of Fard Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari and fees receipts are enclosed). (4) That on this land, there were about 30 years old Mango, Eucalyptus and Popular trees on this land, whose market value was about 20-30 lacs which have been secretly cut by Neeraj Puri and Yog Raj Puri without informing us and further sold. By way o