IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision 30.01.2026 RUPESH AND ANOTHER ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G, Haryana.

Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.4.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH . J .

1. By invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court by virtue of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter being referred to as “Cr.P.C.”, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.47 dated 02.04.2024 Police Station Machhroli, District Jhajjar. The above-said FIR has been lodged for the offences under Sections 323/427/447/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’

only, 2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of Vinod son of Dalbir Singh, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant that on 02.04.2024 at about 08.00 A.M., when complainant alongwith his son Divyans was harvesting mustard crop with the help of tractor and thrasher of Bittu resident of Machrauli, Rupesh and Sonu (petitioners herein) came there, they forcibly stopped the tractor and picked up its key. According to complainant, when his son tried to make the video of incident, the above-named assailants snatched the mobile phone and broke the same. It was also stated by the complainant that thereafter they were assaulted by the above-named assailants and they also destroyed mustard crop by spreading it into the fields. According to complainant, the above named assailants had also threatened them by saying that either they should leave the field otherwise they would be killed.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that in view of above-mentioned complaint formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that the filing of above-mentioned prosecution against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law, and that by cooking up a false story, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. According to learned counsel for the petitioners in fact the petitioners are co-sharers in the land, wherein the alleged cultivation by the complainant was taking place. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainant has got no right title or interest, whatsoever, in the agricultural land, where the alleged incident had taken place. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant are claiming themselves to be a lessee of the co-sharers of the petitioners, and therefore, at the most they can step into the shoes of co-sharers of the petitioners.

6. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that allegations in the FIR against the petitioners are with regard to trespass but as per settled principles of law unless the partition of joint property takes place, by meets and bounds, the plea of co-sharers with regard to trespass against other co-sharers is not sustainable. While claiming that the litigation between the co-shares of the land in question, with regard to partition of the same is in progress, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that any FIR for the commission of offence punishable under Section 447 IPC is not maintainable against the petitioners, and therefore, the instant FIR deserves to be quashed.

7. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the principles of law laid down by this Court in the cases of ‘Karamjit Kaur Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others’ CRM-M-2080-2013 [decided on 03.10.2013] and ‘Jaspal Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another’ CRM-M-35031-2009 [decided on 26.04.2011].

8. The above-mentioned augments have been