The court quashed the FIR due to the absence of prima facie evidence for the charges, affirming that vague allegations do not substantiate criminal liability, and distinguished the matter as a family dispute.

JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’), has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 125 dated 20.11.2022, registered under Sections 427 and 447 read with Section 511 of the IPC at Police Station Sandaur, District Malerkotla and the proceedings having emanated therefrom.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2-Bahadar Singh on the allegations that Samreen Kaur and Ivleen Kaur, who are his granddaughters and residing in Canada, were co-owners of 04 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of village Faujewal. The girdawari entries of this land were in the names of his granddaughters and previously it was leased out to one Manjeet Singh, who had vacated the same after reaping the paddy crops. The complainant had to lease out this land further. Stubble of the paddy crop was standing in the above said land, which was to be used by the complainant. On 20.11.2022, the petitioner/accused along with 3-4 unknown persons destroyed the stubble by putting fire and tried to encroach upon the above said land. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The presence of the petitioner was secured. He was released on bail. After completion of necessary investigation and usual formalities, challan under Sections 427 and 447 read with Section 511 of IPC was presented as against the petitioner.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR and the proceedings having emanated therefrom including the challan report, are liable to be quashed since he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact there was matrimonial discord between his son Varinder Singh and daughter-in-law Paramjeet Kaur and they had parted ways. He is paternal grandfather of Samreen Kaur and Ivleen Kaur, whereas respondent No. 2/complainant is not their real grandfather. Rather, he is uncle of Paramjeet Kaur. The property in question was owned by his son Varinder Singh to the extent of ¼ share. He had transferred the same in favour of the petitioner and his wife. His granddaughters had challenged the transfer by filing a civil suit, which has been decreed in their favour. An appeal filed against the said judgment and decree is pending. The petitioner had filed a revision petition, bearing CR-3828-2018, before this Court against the interim order, passed by the learned first appellate Court, and status quo regarding possession of the above said land has been ordered to be maintained. In fact, it was the complainant, who had tried to take forcible possession of the land in question, after passing of the impugned order and an FIR bearing No. 45 dated 05.06.2018 had been lodged under Sections 148 , 149, 379, 447 and 511 of IPC against respondent No. 2 at Police Station Sandaur. Respondent No.2, by forcibly entering into the land in question, had ploughed the same as on 20.11.2022 and a contempt petition filed against him is also pending. Even otherwise, the petitioner is the joint co-owner in possession of the land in question. The ingredients for commission of offences punishable under Section 427 and 447 of IPC have not been at all attracted in this case, as there are vague allegations in the FIR. No description of the property which was allegedly tried to be encroached upon by the petitioner has been mentioned in the FIR. The criminal proceedings have been initiated only to abuse the process of law. He ha