JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

1. This order shall dispose of both the above mentioned petitions as they arise from similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRM-M-8629-2011.

2. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.22833 of 2010 dated 30.07.2010 (Annexure P-1) titled as 'Kulbir Singh Gill Vs Harbir Singh Gill and others' summoning order dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh against petitioners under Sections 447/457/341 of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Succinctly, the facts, as alleged, are that the petitioner-Harbir Singh Gill, petitioner-Rajbir Singh and the respondent-Kulbir Singh are real brothers who were residing together as a joint family in House No.140, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh. In view of a verbal settlement arrived at in the year 1993, at the instance of their father Dilbag Singh, the brothers were given possession over different portions of the said house. The respondent was residing in a government accommodation, while he and his family retained possession over their portion of the house by keeping their articles there under lock and key. Subsequently, Dilbag Singh passed away on 28.08.2003.

4. In the month of May, 2008, the petitioners started construction to alter the said property. Suspecting foul play, the wife of the respondent approached the police and submitted a written request. However, no action was taken, causing the complainant to submit a complaint before the SSP on 01.06.2010. Thereafter, the cousin sister of the complainant namely Kanwal Preet Kaur informed the complainant that the petitioners have connived with each other and stolen the articles from his portion of the house. Accordingly, the complaint(supra) was instituted under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the father of petitioner No.1- Dilbag Singh died on 28.08.2003. During his lifetime, he executed as many as five wills; the latest was duly executed on 09.09.1996. Per the said will, the deceased bequeathed the house in question onto his granddaughters namely Dhanpreet Kaur and Chetanbir Kaur (petitioner No.3), in equal share. The respondent has instituted the complaint (supra) out of infuriation at the wishes of the deceased, as highlighted by the will dated 09.09.1996. Further, the respondent had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners with respect to the portion allegedly owned by him. However, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.09.2016 (Annexure P-17) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh. An appeal was preferred against the same by the respondent, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. Moreover, the respondent has himself admitted that he resides in a government accommodation, as such he is not an owner in possession. Learned counsel further contends that the nature of possession enjoyed by children in their parents' house is merely that of licensees. Also, it must be noted that in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, partition is not allowed. The respondent had approached the police in order to lodge an FIR but no action was taken as the allegations were found baseless on enquiry. Lastly, the impugned order dated 05.01.2011 has been passed in the most cryptic fashion, without providing any cogent reasons. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab 2016(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 324, Manmohan Singh vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others 2016(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 838, Shamsher Singh vs. District Magistrate, U.T. Administration, Chandigarh and others in CWP No. 6365 of 2015 decided on 20.02.2017 and Bhartu vs. Ram Sa